Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Abattoirs

David Cameron: What steps she is taking to assist small abattoirs; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: As we announced in the rural White Paper last year, agriculture Departments in England, Scotland and Wales have agreed to transfer £8.7 million to the Food Standards Agency for the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04, enabling the agency significantly to reduce inspection charges levied on many small and medium meat plants.

David Cameron: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but is she aware that in recent years the overall costs of small and medium abattoirs such as Mutch Meats in Witney have accelerated because of the need to remove waste, the BSE regulations, meat hygiene inspection charges and additional costs from foot and mouth? Does she agree that they need short-term help because of foot and mouth, but that in the longer term a proper answer is required to make those businesses viable? When will we get that answer? In particular, will it form part of Sir Don Curry's report? The terms of reference are not entirely clear. It is important that we examine abattoirs carefully to ensure that we do not end up with just a few mega-slaughterhouses.

Margaret Beckett: Of course, I am aware that there have been a lot of problems in the abattoir sector, which I agree have been exacerbated by foot and mouth. It is not for me to say what Sir Don Curry's commission will consider—it is independent—but it is possible that it will examine what is happening in a number of abattoirs. I am not sure whether it will look more widely at the overall climate, but I am sure that it will take heed of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

David Taylor: Is it possible to enter into negotiations with our European Union partners to review and revise meat hygiene laws to get a better balance between high standards and economic viability? Are there ways in which we can encourage farmers to use nearby abattoirs, and supermarkets to relax their policy of using just a small number of industrial-scale abattoirs, which are often distant from the point of meat production?

Margaret Beckett: The issue of whether people use facilities more locally or at a greater distance is likely to feature in one way or another in the various inquiries that have been set up to examine the foot and mouth outbreak. On the general issue that my hon. Friend raises, we continually press to get the right balance and to ensure that we have safety and high quality in food without overburdensome regulation. He will know that it is only a couple of years since an industry working group was set up to examine the sector. We keep it under review, but I do not anticipate making major proposals in the near future.

Norman Baker: In recent years, every abattoir in my constituency has closed, with the consequence that farmers have to transport animals much further for slaughter. Are not longer lorry journeys bad for animals, bad for farmers in economic terms and bad for the environment? Is there not a case for Government to help abattoirs in particular parts of the country, including east Sussex, to reopen?

Margaret Beckett: Abattoirs have been closing gradually for about 20 years, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. Of course, there are issues about distances; equally, there are issues about commercial viability. Most of the abattoirs that have closed have basically gone out of business. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we subsidise abattoirs. I do not find that an attractive proposition, but I am sure that some aspects of his comments will come up when the recent disease outbreak is examined.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have just one small abattoir left in my constituency, at Ilkley, which is well regarded by local farmers? Does she agree that we should be encouraging more small abattoirs to stop long, painful journeys for animals? The impact of the foot and mouth outbreak might have been reduced if more small abattoirs had been spread around the country.

Margaret Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for her constituents, although she will know that wherever animals are sent to abattoirs the journey has to comply with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997. That gives considerable detail on measures necessary to protect animals. With regard to my hon. Friend's more general point about the number of abattoirs, as I have said, that issue is bound to be considered. I recall being told that, at the time of the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, there were about 1,500 abattoirs, yet there was a serious disease outbreak then, although it was not precisely the same as the one that we have recently had.

Rural Services

Chris Pond: What measures she is taking to support (a) shops and (b) essential services in rural areas.

Alun Michael: Since the rural White Paper was published a year ago we have provided substantial extra funding to boost basic services in rural areas. We have helped village shops and pubs, extended rate relief, helped rural schools and other services, extended sure start to rural areas and assisted bus services, to name just a few.

Chris Pond: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the opening today of the refurbished Shorne post office in my constituency? Is he aware that more than 1,000 of my constituents have signed a petition calling for improvements to a small parade of shops in Meopham called Camer parade? The viability of those high-quality businesses is threatened by poor access, especially for elderly and infirm people, and by the need for environmental improvements for which resources are not currently available. Does my right hon. Friend agree with those petitioners that local shops and other services are the life-blood of rural communities, and will he advise parish councils on how to access resources to make the improvements that are needed to such facilities?

Alun Michael: There are several ways in which we can help local shops to remain viable. I especially welcome the news that efforts to stem the loss of post offices have succeeded in the case that my hon. Friend mentions. I congratulate him on undertaking an extensive consultation with his rural constituents. He has pointed to one conclusion and I look forward to hearing more about his constituents' views when I see him shortly, as he has requested.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister confirm that his Department has received a letter from my constituent Sir John Cave, chairman of the Council of the Devon County Show? Will the Minister acknowledge the real importance of the return of livestock to the show next year, and will he ask his officials to let the organisers of county shows know before the end of January whether they will get the necessary permits?

Alun Michael: I am aware of the importance of the Devon county show, which is why I visited it this year. Despite the fact that livestock were absent, it gave a tremendous boost to communities in Devon to get together and it was a welcome event. We are aware of the importance of livestock to the Devon and other shows, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we must be careful not to jump ahead of the veterinary risk assessments that are available to give certainty that might turn out to be uncertainty. However, we will bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind and give the organisers of such shows the best information possible as soon as possible.

Jim Knight: Will the Minister join me in congratulating all those involved in the successful award this morning by UNESCO of world heritage status to the Dorset and east Devon coasts, which are the first in England to receive it? What support can his Department give us in co-ordinating across that rural area the essential services that we need to provide for the visitors whom we look forward to attracting to our world heritage site?

Alun Michael: I am delighted by that news and the fact that my hon. Friend has made the link between the environment, conservation and the quality of the landscape, and the ability to attract people to the area to help the local economy. We are helping with the provision of services in a range of ways. I commend to hon. Members on both sides of the House the document "England's Rural Future", which as I said yesterday has been made available to the Library and the Vote Office. It describes the extensive work that has been done in the past 12 months, as well as giving our detailed response to the rural taskforce and the Haskins report.

Jonathan Sayeed: The Prime Minister said on 20 September 1999 that
	"This is not a Government that has turned its back on rural areas."
	Why should anyone believe the Prime Minister when ever more rural shops are now going out of business and rural post office closures accelerating? In much of rural Britain, businesses are being forced into bankruptcy at a rate unprecedented since the war, and £700 million has been filched from county councils by a Government who fiddle the figures to favour their political friends.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman's question is as much a caricature as it is a predictable and boring way of trying to talk up problems in rural areas. I suggest that he reads the facts in "England's Rural Future". He would then see that the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been justified by the actions that the Government have taken over the past 12 months. Not least among those actions is the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a powerful Department that is able to work for rural communities. We are getting on with that work seriously, while Conservative Members merely mock.

Rhizomania

James Arbuthnot: What representations she has received from interested groups on the Department's consultation paper on rhizomania.

Elliot Morley: We have so far received around 30 replies from individuals by post and e-mail, and one reply from a regional branch of the National Farmers Union, but the consultation period does not close until January. In addition, my noble Friend Lord Whitty has discussed the consultation with the president of the National Farmers Union, and officials have met the vice-president and representatives of the sugar beet and potatoes committees.

James Arbuthnot: Is the Minister confident that his approach will give the sugar beet industry enough time to develop disease-free varieties?

Elliot Morley: The industry is aware of the problems with rhizomania. At least one variety currently available is resistant, but I accept that the more resistant varieties that can be grown in our climate, the better it will be for the industry. These are important and serious matters. The consultation period gives Ministers a chance to discuss with the industry how best to move forward.

Paddy Tipping: Nottinghamshire is a large sugar-beet growing area, with a processing factory at Newark. Will my hon. Friend consider carefully representations from the area for an extension of the containment policy for another three years, so that disease-free varieties can be identified and produced successfully?

Elliot Morley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but we cannot ignore the significant increase in outbreaks that has occurred in Norfolk and Suffolk. One of the options under discussion is whether we could maintain the protected zones in other parts of the country—and that would include Nottinghamshire—where the problem is not so great.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the proposal to remove protected-zone status from Norfolk and Suffolk will have a devastating effect on farmers in my constituency who grow carrots and potatoes for export? Is he aware of the crucial importance of the beet industry for Norfolk? Does he not agree that it is a disgrace that the Minister with responsibility for agriculture is in the House of Lords, where Members of this House cannot question him?

Elliot Morley: We had an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall last week on that subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and indeed the whole ministerial team, are responsible for issues such as the hon. Gentleman raises. However, neither he nor the Department can ignore the current situation in Norfolk and Suffolk. I appreciate that it is not good news for farmers there. The sugar beet industry is important nationally, not just regionally. It is a very important part of our agriculture sector, but we must recognise the problems in Norfolk and Suffolk and try to reach a realistic agreement that will protect the interests of the whole industry.

Keith Simpson: Why has the Minister ruled out the option of simply renewing our rhizomania status? There is no pressure from within the EU not to do so. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a recommendation to exclude Norfolk and Suffolk from the UK's protected zone will have a devastating impact on sugar beet production and horticulture throughout East Anglia. I plead with the Minister to show some common sense on this issue. Could he not allow a three-year extension of our protected status—including Norfolk and Suffolk—to see whether scientific tests can eradicate the soil-borne virus that so threatens our sugar beet industry?
	Farmers in Norfolk earlier this week overwhelmingly rejected the three proposals put forward by DEFRA. Their plea is that the Minister back the status that we have now. I hope that he will show some common sense.

Elliot Morley: I understand the concerns in Norfolk and Suffolk on this issue, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that it is not true that there is no pressure in the EU. When the protected-zone extension was agreed last time, the negotiations were very difficult and a number of member states objected. The principal objection was that, unfortunately, rhizomania had established itself in Norfolk and Suffolk. We cannot ignore the facts: we must discuss the matter with the industry and try to work out what is the best way to move forward. Unfortunately, the disease is well established in that zone, and the number of outbreaks has gone up. We cannot ignore that.

Forestry

Andrew Miller: If she will make a statement on her policy on forestry.

Elliot Morley: Our policy is to implement the sustainable management of our forests and woodlands and to promote those standards globally. The standards we apply are set out in the UK forestry standard, published in January 1998. Our policies and programmes for forestry in England are set out in the "English Forestry Strategy", which we published in December 1998.

Andrew Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, in first congratulating my noble Friend Lord Clark of Windermere, previously chairman of the all-party group on forestry, on his appointment as chairman of the Forestry Commission.
	Community forests are important in creating a buffer between some of our old industrial areas and residential areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that this programme is proving successful, particularly in the Mersey basin? Will he commit himself to working with landowners to look for an extension of these programmes?

Elliot Morley: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the appointment of Lord Clark, which was supported by the forestry Ministers from all the devolved Administrations. Lord Clark has a long history of involvement with forestry issues, and I am sure that his appointment will be widely welcomed.
	Community forests, and forests generally, have a tremendous role to play in regeneration and in reclaiming derelict land. I am pleased that the North West regional development agency has earmarked £10 million to take that forward. There is great scope for involving private sector funds and a range of organisations in taking forward community forests, which not only provide considerable benefits for local communities, as they have in the Mersey forest, but have scope for regeneration in a way that offers a range of benefits.

Sustainable Development

Patsy Calton: If she will make a statement on the role of her Department in implementing the Government's sustainable development strategy.

Margaret Beckett: My Department has lead responsibility for the Government's strategy. DEFRA intends to put in place a departmental sustainable development strategy by spring 2002. The new Department's aims and objectives have sustainable development at their heart, and my Ministers and I have been actively working with others to take forward sustainable development—for instance, at the climate change talks in Marrakech and the World Trade Organisation talks in Doha. We have called a waste summit, published a fuel poverty strategy and set up the policy commission on food and farming.

Patsy Calton: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Now will she say categorically who holds responsibility for sustainable development? The Chancellor stated in his pre-Budget report:
	"The Government is using tax and other economic instruments to put sustainable development at the heart of policy-making".
	The Green Ministers Committee has now become a sub-committee of the Cabinet Office and DEFRA has sustainable development as its No. 1 priority. Does the accountability for delivery of sustainable development lie with the Treasury, the Cabinet Office or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? Is this joined-up or disjointed government?

Margaret Beckett: If I may say so, that is a thoroughly silly question. If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard that I answered her question by saying at the beginning that my Department has responsibility for sustainable development strategy. She seems to assume that it is in some way a failure of my Department, and a criticism, that we have the Treasury completely on board with regard to sustainable development. The hon. Lady herself said that the Chancellor made a great feature in his remarks of the importance of economic measures to policy development. The Treasury has agreed that sustainable development should be an underlying theme of the whole of the next spending review. That is a substantial policy achievement, and I should have thought that if the hon. Lady understood anything about how this place worked, she would have congratulated us on it.

Peter Ainsworth: I hate to say it, but the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) asked an extremely sensible question. The Government's record on implementing the strategy for sustainable development is one of talking big and doing little. How sustainable is a Department for the environment that has no control over planning? What is sustainable about building millions of houses on greenfield sites? How sustainable is a Department for the environment that has no say over major transport developments? Whatever happened to joined-up government? How sustainable are Ministers who, having lost the confidence of farmers, are rapidly losing the confidence of environmentalists? They have even lost the confidence of their civil servants: in the short life of DEFRA, 14,230 working days have been lost through strike action. Is it not clear that this Christmas the first prize for the best and most stuffed turkey goes to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

Margaret Beckett: We can hear the midnight oil running through that—the hon. Gentleman needs to work a little harder at his jokes in future.
	It is a legitimate argument that planning and transport are important for sustainable development, but when arrangements were different and the responsibilities currently held by DEFRA lay with the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, there were those who expressed great concern at the implications of that—not least in rural areas, although urban environmental issues are important, too. Certainly, great concern was often expressed at the contribution of agriculture—not least to diffuse pollution. There will always be argument about precisely where the boundaries are drawn.
	We have set up a planning co-ordination unit with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in order to bring our information to bear at the appropriate times. A senior civil servant from my Department sits on the transport board. It is certainly arguable that relationships are just as good and just as close, and that just as much information flows as when those sections were all in the same Department.
	As for the notion that a loss of confidence is indicated by the fact—I am sorry to acknowledge it—that we have indeed lost a substantial number of days through strike action, that is a direct consequence of the policy initiated by the Conservatives when they were in government, which allowed and encouraged a great diversity of pay policy across Whitehall. Civil servants in our new Department have very, very disparate pay structures, which is what lies behind the industrial action.

Fishing Industry

Andrew George: What progress she has made towards producing a long-term strategy for the future of the UK fishing industry.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the contribution being made by the industry towards development of a strategy, through the Fish Industry Forum. The outcome of the common fisheries policy review that is now beginning will also be an important influence.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Does he realise, however, that more than two years have passed since the Select Committee's report? In his response, he accepted that we need a long-term strategy for the future of the industry; and that there is clear evidence that the piecemeal and reactive response to the problems of the industry for more than a generation does not address those problems. They need to be addressed. Today's announcement that the decommissioning package has been oversubscribed more than five times is further evidence that the fishing industry is in crisis. Piecemeal responses are no longer acceptable.
	The World Wide Fund for Nature and the industry are making useful and intelligent long-term proposals for the industry. When will DEFRA produce a strategy for the future of the industry?

Elliot Morley: We asked the Sea Fish Industry Authority to make proposals for a strategy on behalf of the industry. It produced a document that I very much welcome as a contribution towards that strategy. I have also held discussions with the Fish Industry Forum, the industry itself, the WWF and other interested parties. It is fair to say that we would have made more progress, but the foot and mouth epidemic has had a devastating effect on the Department's work load—as it has on other parts of the rural economy. We are committed to taking the matter forward and will hold a high-level meeting when we intend further to develop the policy. We welcome the work done by the forum and its suggestions and will respond accordingly.

Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as devising plans to enable fish stocks to recover, we also need a plan to ensure that the fishing industry itself survives in the best condition to catch those fish? Will he look at the success of the oil and gas industry Government taskforce, which set out a clear 10-year strategy that is being implemented? Will he set up a similar taskforce for our fishing industry?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend has been a great advocate of a regional approach to fisheries, and I will certainly take his suggestions seriously. The important thing to recognise is that the most important strategy for the fishing industry is to ensure that we have a sustainable fisheries industry, with sustainable management. That involves addressing some of the problems in relation to the state of our fish stocks and the pressure on them.

Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware that, under the Scottish decommissioning scheme, some 20 per cent. of the fleet has applied to be decommissioned. Although that is good for the industry, it has long-term economic consequences for fishing areas. Will he therefore consider a tie-up scheme to ensure that there is still a fishing industry when stocks recover?

Elliot Morley: A tie-up scheme would not address the problem of the effects of decommissioning on regional areas. The arguments for tie-up schemes are phrased in a different way, and I am not altogether persuaded by them. Funds are available through the regional development agencies and the Scottish Executive to help regions affected by job losses and changes in industry restructuring, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I also say to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) that decommissioning has consequences and should not be seen as an end in itself. Decommissioning should be seen as only one of a range of options to deal with the industry's structural problems.

Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that the House would want to wish the Minister well with his negotiations in Brussels next week, but will he confirm that his approach to those negotiations will be based on sound science, sustainability, especially for areas such as the North sea, and a long-term approach that will deliver for fishing communities such as Scarborough and Whitby?

Elliot Morley: I can certainly confirm that, and I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about the fishing fleets in Scarborough and Whitby, but the fact is that if we do not follow the science, even though that, on occasion, might mean taking very difficult and tough decisions, there will be no fishing industry. It is fair to say that, in this round of negotiations, the Commission's position on a range of stocks goes beyond the science and does not appear to have sound scientific justification. In those circumstances, I will most certainly challenge its position.

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister confirm that the long-term strategy for the United Kingdom fishing industry depends on the European Union treaties ratified by the House?

Elliot Morley: The European treaties certainly have a major bearing on fisheries policy, but the hon. Lady should be aware that the way in which we manage our fisheries in our own waters and the strategies that we apply to our own fishing fleet are matters for the House and the Government.

Farmers Markets

Parmjit Dhanda: What action she is taking to promote farmers markets in town centres.

Elliot Morley: We are actively promoting farmers shops and markets as a good means of getting a higher proportion of the end price back to the primary producers. Farmers markets in town centres help to reconnect town and country. Our target is 400 farmers markets by 2003.

Parmjit Dhanda: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Is he aware of a local initiative in Gloucester, involving the local authority, that has brought about a regular local farmers market right in the heart of the city centre on the third Friday of every month? That has not only benefited Gloucestershire's rural economy but provided consumers with a choice of good-quality fresh fruit. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good model for other towns and city centres to follow?

Elliot Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate his local council on its promotional work. We have encouraged local councils to promote farmers markets. Indeed, there is a possibility of their receiving support from the Countryside Agency and, following the recent White Paper, through the rural enterprise scheme. I use farmers markets myself on occasion; they are a source of excellent-quality British food from regional producers, and I certainly commend them to the House and encourage their support.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Bracknell Forest borough council on its initiative of organising a monthly market in the town centre? Does he accept that many people in my constituency, which is not a rural area, like to use farmers markets and to buy local produce, because they know where it has come from?

Elliot Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is right, and I join him in congratulating his local council. Such markets are a way for local producers to obtain the benefits of added value by selling direct. Many producers, including some in my area, have seized upon such initiatives and developed them constructively. That is good not only for farmers and producers but for consumers, because such markets provide high-quality products and increase local choice.

Phil Sawford: Although we all welcome the growth of farmers markets, there is considerable concern in the farming community about the current restrictions on livestock markets and their long-term future. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the last case of foot and mouth was confirmed, will my hon. Friend review those restrictions?

Elliot Morley: We will certainly review the current restrictions in the light of circumstances and the veterinary advice that we receive. I emphasise that risks remain even though it is very welcome news that we have had no further outbreak of foot and mouth since 30 September. Livestock markets still present a risk, so we must not drop our guard or be complacent. However, as the situation changes, we shall of course review it.

Nicholas Winterton: Macclesfield borough council has a beautiful paved area in front of the town hall and parish church in the heart of the town. The Minister has been very supportive of farmers markets, so will he be more specific about the assistance that might be available in the short term to establish them on a regular basis for the benefit not only of hard-pressed farmers but of consumers who want real British-produced fresh food?

Elliot Morley: As a Department, we have helped to promote farmers markets and develop a national network. We have advised and supported them. It is possible to obtain advice and support from the Countryside Agency and the rural enterprise scheme. Last but not least, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's local council might be interested in providing support to an excellent initiative.

Common Agricultural Policy

Derek Wyatt: What assessment she has made of how the mid-term review of the CAP will be affected by the enlargement of the EU; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: We expect the European Commission to initiate the mid-term review in 2002. Agreement on the agricultural elements of the enlargement negotiations has yet to be secured, so it is not yet possible to assess precisely how the enlargement and CAP reform dynamics will impact on each other.
	The environmental damage and budgetary costs of extending the CAP to new member states both add weight to the UK Government's position that the CAP must be reformed sooner rather than later.

Derek Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I realise that it is a complex issue. Farmers in my constituency keep cattle and sheep and others produce apples, pears, cherries, raspberries and strawberries. Our worry is that Tesco and Walmart—and not the consumer and the farmer—will be enabled. Can she be persuaded to ask the regional development agencies to hold a series of one-day conferences so that we can discuss with farmers the type of economic reform that is needed and the help that we can give?

Margaret Beckett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in the subject, and he made a very interesting suggestion. I undertake to consider whether that or other means will enable us to do more to draw in input from exactly the stakeholders to whom he referred.

Robert Smith: In the right hon. Lady's plans to take forward negotiations on CAP reform, what will she do to deal with the problem of the high value of the pound and its fluctuation against the euro, especially now that the agrimonetary compensation schemes are to come to an end? Is she working to find replacement schemes?

Margaret Beckett: We recognise that agriculture is one of those sectors in the United Kingdom that has suffered an impact as a result of the level of the currency. The hon. Gentleman will know that Governments who have tried to meddle with the level of the currency have rarely been successful. However, I think that it is true to say that rarely have any British Government been worried by the level of the pound being too high, except for when Lord Lawson tried to keep it high deliberately.
	Our goals for CAP reform are to provide greater room for manoeuvre and flexibility and to try to steer resources away from what is known as the first pillar and into the second pillar of rural support—agri-environment schemes and so on. Indeed, if we can, we hope to break the link between support for market-distorting subsidies and direct support for production. The hon. Gentleman's ideas about the issues that we should pursue in CAP reform are, I am afraid, not at the top of our agenda.

Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that reform of the common agricultural policy has long been an ambition of all of us in this country? Does she accept that enlargement gives us an opportunity to examine the relevance of the CAP and to ensure that any change is beneficial to the enlarged Community in Europe?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right that enlargement is a key issue. It concentrates people's minds on the need for CAP reform, which has long been recognised in this country. There is also the additional pressure of the timetable negotiated by my right hon. Friends and others in Doha, under which the European Union has to get together a negotiating package of proposals, probably by spring 2003. All those things, along with the mid-term review that was already scheduled, bring greater pressure to bear than ever before in respect the need, and drivers, for CAP reform.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before I go any further and get into trouble, the House should be aware of my farming interests.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that to enlarge the EU, the CAP will have to be reformed? If so, does she also agree that every member, both new applicant countries and existing countries, should move towards a deregulated agricultural market, not a protected one?

Margaret Beckett: I certainly agree that those are parallel processes. It is common ground in most quarters of the House that CAP reform should be pursued. Enlargement gives further impetus to the need for reform and provides a useful driver. I share the hon. Gentleman's view, if I understand him correctly, that we should aim for a thriving and successful agriculture industry that thrives and succeeds without needing all the direct support from the Government.

Joyce Quin: In addition to the pressures for reform to which my right hon. Friend referred, does she agree that it is also important to treat developing countries more fairly in the world trading and agricultural systems? What work is she doing to build up a coalition for reform within the EU, in particular with key allies such as Germany, Sweden and Denmark, to ensure that all opportunities for reform are taken as firmly and robustly as possible?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that. I agree that it is important to give developing countries proper access to our markets in this and other sectors. On alliances, we are building on the solid foundations that were securely laid when my right hon. Friend was a Minister in the Department. We continue to work in particular with the countries that she named. The intention was to have a further discussion, which would have been held fairly recently, but the Danish Government decided to have a general election instead. We anticipate reinstating that engagement soon.

Hugh Robertson: As part of the Secretary of State's review of CAP reform, will she undertake to ensure that the needs of the horticulture industry are considered and, as more countries join the EU, that proposals for fair and transparent labelling are introduced?

Margaret Beckett: The whole issue of labelling is frequently discussed in a variety of ways in the CAP as it stands, never mind how it might be reformed. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know that horticulture does not feature large on the list of top priorities for consideration in the mid-term review, but I can assure him that we will try to ensure that no opportunity for beneficial reform is overlooked.

Dennis Skinner: It is intriguing to hear the clamour from the Tories and the Liberals on the need for CAP reform. May I make a simple forecast? If my right hon. Friend or any other Labour Minister reforms the CAP, the farmers in all the Tory and Liberal constituencies will squeal like busted pigs and the Tories and the Liberals will vote against it.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend has often shown remarkable prescience. For everybody's sake, I hope that we and our allies in the European Union will be successful in substantially reforming the CAP, because that is highly desirable, but I accept that, whatever success the Government achieve, it will not be recognised by Opposition Members.

Bob Spink: May I tempt the right hon. Lady to go a step further and talk not about reforming but entirely dismantling the CAP, which has proved to be entirely incompatible with enlargement? It is expensive and futile, and it is perceived as such. Should not the Government lead the way in Europe towards dismantling it?

Margaret Beckett: It is arguable that the Government have been leading the way in negotiations in Berlin and elsewhere, although it is important that there is a core group of nations that are of one mind in seeking reform. I share the hon. Gentleman's view on the CAP, that there is very little to praise and much to blame.

Meat Exports

Lindsay Hoyle: If she will ease the restrictions imposed on those exporting British meat.

Elliot Morley: The current restrictions on exports of British meat as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak are imposed by European Community law. As the disease situation improves, we are continuing to seek amendments that will ease them without jeopardising effective disease controls.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but could he go a little further? Sheep farmers in my constituency have suffered because they used to farm beef and, when the beef market collapsed and they could not export, they took up sheep farming, hoping to export at a better price. Unfortunately, the restrictions mean that they do not receive a price that reflects the true worth of their lambs. Can my hon. Friend introduce blood testing, as a way to ensure that exports can resume earlier?

Elliot Morley: I returned yesterday from an international conference on foot and mouth disease in Brussels, where a whole range of issues was raised, including the possibility of a greater role for blood testing and new technology that could aid disease controls. The Government, with the support of the Commission and other member states that have been very sympathetic, have been successful in regaining our exports as quickly as we realistically could, given the scale of the disease outbreak. I appreciate that there are still many restrictions on my hon. Friend's constituents in the sheep industry. However, on the continent, prices for sheepmeat are good at the moment, and I am sure that farmers will benefit from that as we gradually expand the export market.

Malcolm Bruce: What does the Minister propose to do about the French conditions, which will effectively keep British lambs out of the key French market by requiring that all lambs over six months have the spinal column removed? Given that we do not have a traceability scheme for sheep, it is obviously impossible to give that assurance, so we will be shut out of the market. The French need our quality and we need their market. What is my hon. Friend going to do about that? In light of the decision on beef, will he ensure that the French comply with their obligations to have a single market operation?

Elliot Morley: I got two questions for the price of one. First, the French proposals for additional sheep controls raise serious issues because we do not think that they are justified by the science or, indeed, by reference to consumer protection. The matter was raised at the last Agriculture Council and it will come up at the next one. Our position is that the controls place unnecessary restrictions on the sheep sector. On the recent European judgment, we were always confident that our position would be upheld by the European Court of Justice, and we now expect the French Government to comply.

Douglas Hogg: Is it not also important to review policy on the import into the United Kingdom of meat for personal consumption?

Elliot Morley: Yes, we have been reviewing that, and the need to review border controls and inspection came up at yesterday's conference. According to the papers presented at the conference, this has been the worst year ever for foot and mouth outbreaks internationally, and of course we have suffered as part of that. We need to consider a range of measures, and certainly border controls are one of them.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister join me in expressing delight at today's European Court ruling that the French ban on British beef was illegal? Will he now ensure that maximum pressure is brought to bear on the French Government to comply with the law without further delay? What consideration has he given to seeking compensation from the French Government for damage to British producers and exporters? Will that be done in the event of a failure to comply in a timely manner? Will he commit the Government to doing everything possible to help reopen that important market for British producers, which is worth hundreds of millions of pounds?

Elliot Morley: I repeat that we welcome the ruling of the European Court, which we expected because we always argued that the French position was illegal. Just to be clear, the dispute was between the French Government and the Commission. The French Government went against the rules of the Community and the Commission pressed the case successfully. I understand that the Court has powers to impose a daily fine on the French Government if they do not comply, and I am sure that it will consider that. The Government do not have a statutory procedure on compensation, but United Kingdom companies and firms may wish to pursue it, and we will provide them with support, advice and assistance on that.

Recycling

John Baron: What plans the Government have financially to assist local councils in meeting their waste recycling targets.

Margaret Beckett: In the 2000 spending review, the Government found significant extra resources for local authorities. By 2003–04, the environmental protective and cultural services standard spending assessment, which includes waste services, will have risen by £1.1 billion over the provision for the previous year. There is also a private finance initiative provision of £220 million over the spending review period and a ring-fenced pot of £140 million over the next two years, on which we have now published a consultation paper.

John Baron: I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but that money is not enough and it is not forthcoming. Is she aware that, after the recent waste summit, Friends of the Earth and other bodies such as Waste Watch estimated that about £375 million will be required annually if targets are to be met? In addition, the £140 million that she mentioned, which was first identified in the 2000 comprehensive spending review, has still not been paid. My county council in Essex has not received a penny. If the Government—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has enough to go on with.

Margaret Beckett: Of course, it is perfectly understandable and not at all unreasonable that organisations such as Friends of the Earth continually press the Government to increase further the already substantial extra resources that we are prepared to provide. Those issues will be considered in the next spending review. As for the progress of the hon. Gentleman's county council, I know that it has had discussions with our officials about projects that it has in mind but, as far as I am aware, it has not yet made an application.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend believe that in parts of the country where one local authority is responsible for the collection of refuse and another is responsible for its disposal, there is adequate co-ordination to ensure that recycling is given sufficient consideration and is high on the agenda?

Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government recognise the importance of that. Indeed, one purpose of the recent waste summit was to press for more action to produce the recycling facilities that we need. I accept entirely my hon. Friend's point about co-ordination between different authorities. It is important that authorities try to develop waste management and waste minimisation strategies for their area because that enables the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements to be made.

Gregory Barker: Given the Secretary of State's rhetoric about waste, can she tell the House whether over the past five years, the amount of waste generated per person in the United Kingdom has increased or decreased?

Margaret Beckett: The figure is continuing to increase at a rate of about 3 per cent. a year. That is one of the reasons why the Government have made such a priority of waste minimisation, rather than just the handling of waste. Unfortunately, there has not been the investment over the years in adequate facilities to manage and handle waste, or in facilities to minimise it. Those are all issues to which the Government are giving considerable attention.

Anne Begg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in areas where the local authority is seeking to build an incinerator, there is a fear that that will remove the incentive to recycle, so the incinerator will suck in large quantities of waste that should be recycled?

Margaret Beckett: I am aware of that perfectly reasonable and sensible concern. That is partly why I told my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that it is extremely important that local authorities have an overall plan for the handling of waste in their locality, and that they engage the public in discussion about such issues, so that there can be a properly considered set of proposals. However, there are occasions when any proposal for any incineration under any circumstances is opposed, on the grounds of the perfectly reasonable fears that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) mentioned.
	The Government do not accept that there is no place for some, perhaps relatively small-scale, extension of incineration facilities. Unfortunately, there is still a quantity of waste that cannot be dealt with by re-use or recycling, and there remains a need for some incineration. I am sorry that some who campaign very well on these issues refuse to accept that.

Fuel Poverty

Simon Hughes: If she will make a statement on her strategy on fuel poverty.

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and I launched the UK fuel poverty strategy on 21 November. It shows that since 1996, efforts to tackle low incomes and reduce fuel bills have cut the number of fuel poor by some 1.5 million. Our first target is to take the remaining 3 million vulnerable households—pensioners, families and the disabled—out of fuel poverty by 2010. At the same time, we will work with those expert in the subject to identify how to reach our overall goal of an end to all fuel poverty in the UK.

Simon Hughes: In the week before the beginning of winter, in a country that has a high level of excess winter deaths—much higher than many other countries in Europe—does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the policy announced, which was expected to produce great things, is widely regarded as disappointing? Does he accept that we need to re-examine the Government's strategy, which was announced at the Labour party conference last year and set a target date of 2010 for eliminating, as far as practical, all fuel poverty? Furthermore, will he reconsider the definition of household income? By referring to household income, not disposable income, about a million people, on best estimates, are taken out of the programme, rather than vulnerable people being included in it.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is being remarkably and uncharacteristically churlish. We are the first Government who have ever given a commitment to end fuel poverty. We say that we will achieve that by 2010, and it is obviously right that we concentrate on the key priorities: pensioners, families with young children on low incomes, and the long-term sick and disabled. We have also said—and I gave strong support to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000—that once we have dealt with the priority categories, we will complete the objective by dealing with all those who are fuel poor. As to the definition, it is open to question whether that should include mortgage interest payments and housing benefit. Our commitment is to end fuel poverty on either definition.

Michael Jabez Foster: May I tell my right hon. Friend that low-income families in Hastings and Rye have received very well the insulation scheme support that they have been given? However, many people are not receiving such support. Eaga in particular is failing to deal with applications for months, and the target of 2010 may not be achieved in respect of some people who have already made applications.

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There have been significant delays in the scheme because of the lack of sufficient heating engineers. We have recruited a further 400 engineers in the past six months and are now beginning to pick up speed. The home energy efficiency scheme has helped 250,000 households since its launch in the middle of last year and is installing more than 3,000 new central heating systems a month in pensioner households. We are getting on track and I believe that we will certainly fulfil our objectives by 2010.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Robin Cook: I am gratified by the interest in the business for next week.
	The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 17 December—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill.
	Tuesday 18 December—A motion to approve the use of the facilities of the House for those Members who have chosen not to take their seats.

Hon. Members: Shame!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the House answer the question.

Robin Cook: That will be followed by the remaining stages of the International Development Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 19 December—Motion to approve a statutory instrument. Details to be announced in the Order Paper.
	Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.
	The business following the Christmas recess will be:
	Tuesday 8 January—Second Reading of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 9 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill.
	Thursday 10 January—A debate on House of Lords reform on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 11 January—Private Members' Bills.
	The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 9 January 2002, there will be a debate relating to the 2001 broad economic policy guidelines in European Standing Committee B.
	The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 16 January 2002, there will be a debate relating to the sixth environmental action programme in European Standing Committee A.
	[Wednesday 9 January 2002:
	European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union Documents: 8261/01, 9326/01, Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-ii (2001-02).]
	Wednesday 16 January 2002:
	European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union Document: 5771/01, Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports:HC 28-xi (2000-01); HC 152-i and HC 152-ii (2001-02).]

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week and beyond. Does he know that this a red letter day? I am sure that he does, as he is always very well briefed. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will wish to be reminded that today is the golden wedding anniversary of Lady Thatcher and Sir Denis Thatcher, without whom, of course, Thatcherism would never have been possible. Will the Leader join me, my hon. Friends and, I hope, all hon. Members in sending our congratulations and best wishes to the Thatchers and in wishing them very many years of happiness together?
	Following the conviction of the killer of little Sarah Payne yesterday, will the Leader promise us an urgent statement on what the Government propose to do to give all possible reassurance to parents throughout the country that everything will be done to ensure that something as horrible as this cannot and will not happen again? I believe that it is very important that we make an urgent response to the events leading up to this ghastly incident.
	The Leader of the House has told us that there will be a motion next Tuesday
	"to approve the use of the facilities of the House for those Members who have chosen not to take their seats."
	I notice that the resolution states that
	"those Members who have chosen not to take their seats . . . may use the facilities within the precincts of the House and the services of departments of the House".
	It refers to Members. Will the Leader of the House promise us that it is solely, therefore, a matter for the House of Commons? Will we be given proper and adequate time to debate such a serious matter? Will the motion be fully amendable? Given that it is a House of Commons matter, will there be a free vote on it? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that it is not subject to the deferred Division procedure, so that we can ensure that those who attend the debate are those who vote on it, and that there will be no hiding behind pink forms on a subsequent occasion?
	I pointed out that the motion refers only to Members. That is important. Will the Members who are allowed on to the premises be asked to sign the same form as staff? I assume that their staff will not be allowed in because, mercifully, the motion does not cover them. Will the Members be required to fill in the form, which we have always regarded as important for our security? It asks:
	"Have you ever been involved in espionage, terrorism, sabotage"
	or
	"actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means?
	Have you ever been a member of, or supported a group or groups involved in any of the above activities?
	Have you ever had a close association with anyone who, to your knowledge, has been a member of or given active support to any such group or activities?"
	If such people—we are talking about Sinn Fein-IRA—are going to be admitted on to the premises, will they be asked to fill in the form? I hope that they will be. Will they be subject to the sanctions that are always enforced on others whom we invite into the parliamentary estate? Those are only some of the questions that will have to be resolved. I know that you will be watching matters closely, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Leader of the House can give us explicit assurances before we even get to the debate.

Robin Cook: I apologise for overlooking the golden wedding anniversary of Lady Thatcher and her husband; I regret failing in that courtesy. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being so magnanimous on this occasion and I am happy to add my felicitations to his. If that casts a passing shadow over the festivities, I regret it, but I am happy to offer my congratulations.
	On the appalling murder of Sarah Payne and the trial that has just concluded with a conviction, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government already have several measures in hand to increase protection for vulnerable young children. We are introducing restraining orders and sex offender orders, which restrict the activities of known sex offenders. We are conducting a review of sentencing, which pays special attention to the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders. We are also expanding places on treatment programmes in prisons. We have introduced the possibility of extended post-release supervision for sex offenders, and are requiring the police and the probation services to work together to establish better arrangements for assessing sex offenders who have been released. I assure the House that we shall continue to do everything possible to protect young children. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep hon. Members informed of further developments.
	Let me deal with the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked about Tuesday's debate. It is a House of Commons matter and there will not be a Whip on this side. [Hon. Members: "Nor a payroll vote?"] Nor will the debate be time limited; it does not qualify for a specific limit under Standing Orders and it will therefore be open ended. Like any other motion of the House, it is wholly amendable. Conservative Members can table any amendments that they wish. As the debate commences at 3.30 pm, Divisions cannot be deferred, and we would not wish to have a deferred vote on the matter. We want a full and open debate on whatever amendments the right hon. Gentleman cares to table, and to hold a vote at the end of it.
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a matter that dates only from 1997, when Speaker Boothroyd made her statement to the House. She withdrew from Sinn Fein Members access to areas within the parliamentary precincts. They had access without passes until then. They also had access to some 20 different services and facilities of the House.
	The situation in Northern Ireland has changed since 1997. We have had the Good Friday agreement, and seen the election of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have also seen the first ever verifiable act of decommissioning in the history of Northern Ireland and, only yesterday, the Northern Ireland Policing Board, including its Sinn Fein members, agreed on a new crest for the police, which includes a stylised version of the crown.
	There have been enormous changes in Northern Ireland, and I do not see a case for this place remaining frozen in the position that it took in 1997, before all those events took place. One of the four Members currently barred from these premises is now a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. If he can be Education Minister for a part of the United Kingdom, why on earth can he not have access to the Vote Office, the Library or the travel office in the House of Commons?
	Members in most quarters of the House support the peace process. If we really want to see peace in Northern Ireland, we surely ought to take this one modest step forward towards normalising the politics of Northern Ireland.

Kevin Hughes: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been eagerly awaiting the publication of the performance and innovation unit's energy review. Today's New Scientist claims to have a leaked copy of it. Now that the document is in the public domain, will the Leader of the House ensure that Members can have a copy of the report, and ask the appropriate Minister to come to the House and make a statement on it? Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who has been married to Lady Thatcher for 50 years deserves a medal as big as a dustbin lid?

Robin Cook: I shall not rise to the tempting invitation in my hon. Friend's closing remark.
	As to the energy review, I have no idea whether the document that the New Scientist has is the right document. In my experience, leaks are often inaccurate. I told the House at the start of the review that I wanted to ensure that hon. Members were informed when it was complete, and that commitment remains.

Paul Tyler: We welcome the publication of the Leader of the House's discussion paper on the modernisation of the House. Will he give us some indication of his timetable for consultation on it, as all Members are obviously extremely interested in these matters? Even if it is not within the time scale of the business that he announces this afternoon, will he tell us when he expects there to be a debate in the House on the matter?
	In that connection, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will look carefully at the way in which the proposals that he has so properly set out in this discussion paper apply to our recent discussions on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill? We take very seriously his statement that good security makes for good government. Is he satisfied that that has happened on this occasion? Given the Home Secretary's overheated threats last weekend, will the Leader of the House tell us whether every part of the Bill is essential to prevent and deter terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday period? For example, does he really think that part 5 of the Bill, which relates to race and religion, must be on the statute book to deter and prevent terrorist attacks? What other parts of the Bill are essential for that purpose?

Robin Cook: On the modernisation paper, I have requested the Clerk of the Modernisation Committee to mail a copy of my memorandum to all hon. Members, with a covering letter inviting comments and views on the proposals, preferably in writing, by 31 January. If we are going to take forward this modernisation package, it is important that we do so in a way that reflects the views of as many hon. Members among whom it is possible to get agreement as possible.
	I stress that the objective of the package is to secure a more effective House of Commons. It is not about making life easy for Members of Parliament, and I do not imagine that any Member came to this place expecting an easy life. They did, however, expect the opportunity to do an effective job, and that is what we are seeking to secure.
	On the other matter, I was interested to hear the shadow Home Secretary say on the radio yesterday:
	"I am fully convinced we can have this Bill through well in time for the Christmas break, and we need it."
	I fully agree—we do need it and it can be done. We need the Bill because it contains measures that are important to the security of our constituents, such as ensuring that we have better control over airfields, better control over access to nuclear material and better powers for the Ministry of Defence police and the nuclear police. It is important to show our constituents that, given that we can identify those serious loopholes in our law, we can deliver on them in a reasonable time and we can have the Bill in place by the end of the year.

Jimmy Wray: Has the Leader of the House made time available to debate the shipbuilding industry throughout the UK? A question was asked in the other place about the number of schemes set up since 1997. I notice that the answer was nil.

Robin Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's constituency interest and the great importance of the shipbuilding industry to our economy. There is an Adjournment debate on the matter next week, but obviously I shall consult my colleagues on what further facilities they can make available to allow my hon. Friend to register his views with them.

Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the appalling measure he proposes to introduce next week with respect to Sinn Fein/IRA does not apply to the staff of those concerned?

Robin Cook: The position in relation to staff of the four Members who have not taken the Oath will be precisely the same as that for any other member of staff. [Interruption.] No, they will be subject to the same security vetting as any other member of staff.

Debra Shipley: With reference to my right hon. Friend's answer on paedophiles, can a statement be made on the monitoring of all the features that the Government have put in place since 1997, to find out how effective they are? I took the Protection of Children Act 1999 through the House and I am very concerned that effectiveness is not being monitored, although such monitoring is desirable. With reference to paedophiles in particular, will my hon. Friend reassure me and the House that the sentencing White Paper promised for spring will be introduced then or preferably sooner, but certainly not later?

Robin Cook: I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for the Home Department attaches great priority to the matter, and work is proceeding with all speed. I hope that we can keep to the timetable we have set ourselves. It is important that sentencing policy should be reviewed and, as my hon. Friend says, it is important that we put the sense into sentencing.

Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House further clarify the grounds on which the decision has been taken to permit Sinn Fein/IRA and their staff access to the facilities of the House of Commons? To many of us, the decision displays further contempt for the traditions of the House. Furthermore, will the freedom being extended to Back Benchers be extended to the payroll? I know that hon. Members—principled Members—from the Government party are as appalled as me. Will the Prime Minister be present on Tuesday to explain to the House how he made a deal behind all our backs to bring this about?

Robin Cook: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the matter was discussed two years ago, so it has not arisen unknown and unheralded. As to the vote next Tuesday, it will be on a one-line Whip. If Labour Back Benchers do not share the view I have expressed, they are perfectly entitled to express theirs. As to other members of the Government, I shall move the motion on the Government's behalf and of course I shall, not unreasonably, look to the Government for support.

Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House is aware that I have never been soft on Sinn Fein or the IRA, but is he further aware that Sinn Fein, at one time, would not take its seats in the Republic of Ireland or in Stormont, because there was no united Ireland at the time? Now it is involved in those bodies and involved in the Northern Ireland Executive. A Sinn Fein Member has toured the Floor of the House as a guest of the British-Irish parliamentary body. The more such people are involved in our activities, the more influence that will have on them. Their involvement means that they are selling out some of their distorted principles from the past, which is very welcome indeed.

Robin Cook: Before I reply to my hon. Friend, may I clarify something that I said earlier? I am advised that it was the SDLP that agreed to the crest for the Northern Ireland police yesterday; Sinn Fein has no members on the policing board for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	I fully recognise my hon. Friend's deep and long-standing interest in Northern Ireland politics, and I welcome the sentiments that he expressed. We are engaged in a process; we want that process to advance; we want to draw into that process precisely those who have resisted peace in Northern Ireland in the past. If we refused to take the modest step of allowing them into the precincts—[Hon. Members: "Modest?"] Indeed it is a modest step to allow them access to the Vote Office and the Library. If we refused to take that step, would it be any surprise if they themselves doubted whether we were interested in taking the process any further?

James Arbuthnot: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he began by saying that Tuesday's debate would involve a free vote, went on to say that there would be a free vote for Back Benchers, and then said that the equivalent of a Whip would be issued to all Labour Front Benchers—all Ministers and all parliamentary private secretaries? That means that the right hon. Gentleman will, in effect, be whipping through the House of Commons entry to the House of Commons for people who deny the basic constitution of this country. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?

Robin Cook: The motion that we will move will reverse a decision made in 1997 in very different circumstances, and restore to those Members access to the premises of a kind that was commonplace when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were in office.
	As for Tuesday's vote, yes, it will be unwhipped for the parliamentary Labour party. But the right hon. Gentleman has been a Chief Whip: he is not wet behind the ears. He knows perfectly well that when a Minister moves a Government motion he will expect other Ministers to support him.

Richard Burden: I know that a private notice question was asked last week, but should there not be an emergency debate or a statement next week, given the events of the past 24 hours in the middle east? Does my right hon. Friend agree that our correct condemnation of terror attacks on buses in no way gives a green light for tanks on the streets of Ramullah, jet or helicopter gunship attacks, or what now appears to be a rather blatant attempt by the Sharon Government to topple President Arafat altogether?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend will know that there was a statement on the middle east the other week. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will want to consider when another might be appropriate. In the meantime, I fully share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the present desperate situation in the middle east. We are particularly concerned about the statement that the Israeli Government will not engage in further talks with Chairman Arafat. The fact is that there will be no progress on peace unless there is dialogue about peace. As I have told the House before, it is not by means of tanks or helicopter gunships or suicide bombers that we will establish peace in the middle east; we will do so only by means of negotiations at the peace table.

Alan Duncan: As we look across the Chamber at the crest of Airey Neave, we should bear in mind the fact that this is a week in which immigrants may have to swear an oath of allegiance, and in which IRA funds from the United States may finally have dried up. Next week, we will debate a completely contemptible motion giving special recognition to people who refused to swear any allegiance, and whose funds will now be provided by the state. Will that motion be amendable, allowing those people's cash benefits and allowances to be set at zero?

Robin Cook: The motion will be amendable. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can table any amendment that is in order. That is out of my hands, but I would expect amendments of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman to be capable of being tabled and debated in the House.
	The whole purpose of the peace process is to ensure that tragic deaths and murders such as that of Airey Neave do not occur again. It is therefore important to make certain that the peace process continues. Yes, it is challenging, and many people in Northern Ireland have had to face challenging decisions as a result of it; but I hope that the House will not shrink from what it is asked to do.

Alice Mahon: I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 238.
	[That this House opposes the increase in segregated faith schools as outlined in the Education White Paper, Schools achieving success; notes that the White Paper says that church and other faith schools must be inclusive but that schools with a particular religious ethos cannot by their very nature be inclusive, because there is discrimination through selection with those of a particular faith being favoured over children who are not of that faith or indeed are atheist, that religious schools choose their children rather than the other way around, that an increase in religious schools may lead to less integration of communities, causing division; and being taught in a religious school is not necessarily a sound basis for living in a multi-cultural society; and further notes that events in Northern Ireland and also in Bradford indicate that we should be working for the greater integration rather than the division of our schools.]
	In the light of recent reports on the riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, which clearly point to segregated education as a problem; and of Lord Ouseley's report, published during the summer, which blamed segregated education for the lack of understanding between different cultures; and of the fact that, in opinion polls, an overwhelming number of people come out against any more faith schools, may we have a debate just on that issue before it appears in a Bill and is lumped in with lots of other things? Given the overwhelming opposition to more faith schools, we need to debate the issue.

Robin Cook: I fully understand the anxiety that prompts my hon. Friend's question. The Cantle report drew attention to the serious problems that can arise in schools that have one single race or culture among their pupils. It is precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has urged all faith schools to include children from other communities, cultures and faiths. My right hon. Friend will put that position forward when we debate the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: I seek further clarification from the Leader of the House in relation to the disgraceful motion that is to come before the House next Tuesday. In view of the fact that IRA-Sinn Fein youth were involved in serious violence against military installations in South Armagh at the weekend, supported and condoned by the leadership of Sinn Fein-IRA; of the murder of a man in South Armagh by republicans earlier this week; and of the fact that, as everyone knows, Martin McGuinness is chief of staff of the IRA, is it not appalling that the Government should come forward with the motion at this time, especially in view of the recent comment by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland was becoming a cold house for Unionists? Is this not more evidence of that fact? Is it not appalling that at a time when the House is debating and considering stronger measures to combat terrorism, the Government should consider putting forward measures to allow IRA-Sinn Fein and terrorist front men into this House and this precinct?

Robin Cook: I gently put it to the hon. Gentleman that his party has participated in over 2,000 committee meetings with Sinn Fein members present. Unionists sit on the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly with a Sinn Fein Member, the Minister of Education. I do not see that it is possible to have that type of co-operation and dialogue in Northern Ireland and at the same time to keep them out of the building of Westminster.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall how, during the 30 years of IRA terror, time and again all the parties represented in the House of Commons urged the IRA to drop the terror and adopt politics? Would it not therefore be right for office accommodation to be provided, possibly as a first step to Sinn Fein Members of Parliament taking their seats, bearing in mind the fact that, whether we like it or not, they were elected as Members of Parliament no less than ourselves? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise how sensitive this subject is but this is not a debate. It is the Leader of the House stating what the business for next week is. I ask hon. Members to be calm.

Robin Cook: The last point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is valid. Some 200,000 people took part in the elections of those four Members. Whether or not they voted for those Members, they are entitled to have their constituency interests adequately represented and looked after. I see no reason why we should deny those 200,000 electors Members who can have access to the precincts and to the House's facilities.
	On the other point, my hon. Friend is correct. We have sought over the years to engage Sinn Fein and the IRA in the political process. We cannot now draw up the drawbridge and say that they cannot have a part in these political facilities.

Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the House might at some stage explain what use of the House was made by the people elected for Sinn Fein before 1997. To my recollection, they came here only for publicity and to provoke public reaction.
	Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House early-day motion 513:
	[That this House has confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and invites Elizabeth Filkin to accept reappointment on the terms of the initial contract working four days a week.]
	The right hon. Gentleman said that the 18 signatures it had attracted were not impressive. The number has now doubled to 36. Does he need it to double again to 72 before he will allow hon. Members to demonstrate to our constituents that we understand how they feel about the matter? The Prime Minister said that it was a matter for the House, so will the Leader of the House give us the opportunity to vote on a motion of confidence in the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to invite her to accept reappointment on the present terms?

Robin Cook: I predicted last Thursday that after I had drawn attention to the fact that the early-day motion had only 18 signatures, the hon. Gentleman would be able to attract more. I congratulate him on his efforts since then, but I stand by the point that I made—that the number of signatures is still modest by comparison with the number attracted by other early-day motions, which have obviously achieved a resonance with hon. Members that the hon. Gentleman's one may not have. On the question of a debate, I cannot, even if I wished to—and I do not—avoid a debate on the matter. Any appointment made by the House of Commons Commission has to come before the full House for approval. That motion will be amendable and the hon. Gentleman may then, if he wishes, test the opinion of the House by seeking to amend it to reappoint Mrs. Filkin.

Stephen Ladyman: I was disappointed to discover that we will not have a debate next week on my right hon. Friend's plans for modernisation of the House, which would have given us the opportunity to lavish on him the praise that is his due for an excellent first step. It would also have given us the opportunity to add a few ideas. I offer my right hon. Friend the suggestion that it is nonsensical that when Ministers make statements to the House, we are not allowed to have the documents supporting those statements until the Minister has finished. If we could collect the relevant documents on an embargoed basis before the statement, we could ask informed questions instead of engaging in the knockabout that we have at the moment.

Robin Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says and we will consider what might be done on that matter. On the wider issue of the modernisation package, I remind the House that we are at the start of the process. We issued yesterday the proposals for a programme of work, not the outcome of that programme. My hon. Friend offers tempting reasons why we should have an earlier debate, but the best time for the House to debate the matter is when the Modernisation Committee puts firm recommendations to the House. In the meantime, we would welcome the contribution of any hon. Member who wishes to comment on the consultation document.

Edward Garnier: When the Leader of the House prepares his introduction to the motion next Tuesday, on access to the House of Commons, will he consider whether it is appropriate for the public to elect two sorts of Member of Parliament—those who are prepared to accept the constitution, take the Oath and use the facilities of the House and the Chamber in the way we all do, and those who are not prepared to accept the constitution and who have spent much of their lives campaigning to bring it down? Is it right that under our constitution we should have two sorts of Member of Parliament?

Robin Cook: As I understand it, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party would wish to make the distinction between the two sorts even greater than I propose. They would keep anyone elected who does not take the Oath out of even the precincts—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I am grateful for such ready confirmation of my interpretation of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. If the Conservatives want to make the gulf even larger than I propose, it does not lie with them to complain about two tiers.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on Consignia, following reports of huge job losses and then speculation that they might not happen? The House deserves an answer on the future of Consignia at the earliest possible date.

Robin Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern and it is widely shared on both sides of the House. I am confident that opportunities for discussion will arise in the future, but I remind my hon. Friend that we introduced an Act of Parliament to confer greater commercial freedom on Consignia and the Post Office. The decisions that have to be taken are not for Ministers, but for the management. I hope that the management in making those decisions will work with, and fully consult, the work force.

Alex Salmond: Yesterday, the Leader of the House published proposals to make the House more meaningful. Many of them are useful and constructive, but how do they square with his refusal to allow a debate on the fate of the existing Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? How can the House hold the Executive to account if it cannot debate its own procedures? The right hon. Gentleman said that we could have a debate on the next commissioner. Does he mean that a debate could be held after that person has been selected by the House of Commons Commission? Would it not be invidious to have a debate when a person has been appointed, and for the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) to move his motion then? How many hon. Members have to sign early-day motion 513 before the Leader of the House does his democratic duty and allows a debate on the existing Commissioner for Standards?

Robin Cook: There is no minimum threshold for the number of signatures that must appear on an early-day motion to attract a debate. Many early-day motions with several hundred signatures have not been debated, and I regret that I cannot give a commitment that they will be. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has correctly apprehended what I said, so I repeat that the Commission does not make the appointment, the House does. The Commission can only make a recommendation. If the hon. Gentleman and, if I may use the term, his hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley)—who appears to have other pressing matters to attend to—really feel so strongly about the matter, I do not think that it would be invidious to expect them to table an amendment when the matter comes before the House.

Iain Luke: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my predecessor on gaining the Scottish Parliament's Committee member of the year award? The Committee that my predecessor chairs is called the Public Petitions Committee, and it allows ordinary people to access the Scottish Parliament and interact with its procedures. Will my right hon. Friend consider that as a model to be reviewed in future stages of the modernisation of this House?

Robin Cook: I well remember Mr. McAllion's diligence and commitment to this House, and I am not at all surprised that that has been transferred to the other place in Edinburgh. I congratulate him on receiving the award.

Douglas Hogg: Is it not likely that the debate on Tuesday will prompt a consideration of the Oath? As currently phrased, the Oath does not fully or wholly accurately reflect the duties of Members of Parliament. Should it not contain a provision that all hon. Members should vote and speak in accordance with their own judgment and opinion? An advantage of such an Oath would be that Government Front-Bench Members would not feel constrained to support the Leader of the House on Tuesday.

Robin Cook: I rather anticipate that my hon. Friends will feel enthusiastic about supporting me on Tuesday. I look forward to their willing and voluntary vote in that Division. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a talent for spotting points that the rest of us have not focused on. If he wishes to propose a change to the Oath we will, of course, consider it. However, I should be very reluctant for the House to revert to the version used in the previous century, when the Oath occupied a full page and swearing-in took much longer.

Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate on the powers of public utility companies? Transco has caused massive disruption in the Hollins Green area of my constituency while laying a pipeline. Access for residents was cut off and good farm land spoiled. The company consistently displayed a cavalier attitude to people living in the areas. Can we have a debate on how the public utilities can exercise their very necessary powers while demonstrating proper concern for local residents?

Robin Cook: I have noticed the growing number of articles in the press on the conduct of Transco. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be an opportunity for a full debate, but I am delighted that she has had this opportunity to put on record a matter that is clearly of serious concern to her constituency.

Andrew MacKay: Does not the Leader of the House understand that Tuesday's motion will be seen first as a public relations coup for Sinn Fein, and secondly as appeasement of men of violence, given that the provisional IRA has only just begun to decommission very few of its illegally held arms and explosives? Does he further understand that there is a simple solution to the problem—that the hon. Members concerned could use the House's facilities if they took the Oath like everyone else? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is entirely wrong to try to push the matter through before Christmas in the hope of avoiding publicity, and to whip the payroll vote on what is essentially a House of Commons matter?

Robin Cook: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that on one point he is grossly wrong—I do not anticipate any lack of publicity for what I have just announced and for what we will be debating on Tuesday. Indeed, I can think of no circumstances in which it would not receive publicity.
	The act of decommissioning is described by the commission that we have appointed to prove and verify decommissioning as "significant". That significant step forward requires us to ask ourselves why we are still living in 1997 and have not recognised that there have been major changes since then.

Mark Francois: What is it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman shouts as loudly as that again, he will be removed from the Chamber. It is not allowed, and perhaps senior Members will tell him so.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that as well as the Cantle report, other reports were published on Tuesday dealing with the disturbances that took place in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham earlier this year. Those reports have many common themes regarding the causes of the disturbances. Those themes are relevant not only to those three places but to many others in the country where there could equally have been disturbances. Certain circumstances meant that the disturbances occurred in those three places in particular. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a good case for these issues to be debated in the House so that we can look at a way forward, because we never again want to see such disturbances anywhere in this country?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this matter. He has deep commitment to and concern for his constituency, and I know the strong and active part that he has played in promoting community relations. He will be aware that the Minister of State, Home Office has followed the matter closely and played an active part in the preparation of the reports. I assure my hon. Friend that Home Office Ministers will be pursuing the necessary follow-up to the reports with great vigour and, at an appropriate moment, I am sure that they will share with the House what action they propose to take.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Leader of the House will understand when I say that I view the business of next Tuesday with the gravest concern. Is he establishing a precedent that no longer in this place are all Members equal? To qualify for our parliamentary salary and the use of facilities, we have to take the Oath or affirm. Is this a precedent? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that Members of this House are no longer here on equal terms? If so, perhaps we should have a debate on this. Bearing it in mind that he will be inviting into this place people who are closely associated still with acts of terrorism and killing, what guarantee can he provide that they will not come in with weapons or be guarded by those with weapons and that our own safety will not be put in jeopardy? I was the last person to speak to Airey Neave—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Robin Cook: I fully respect the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. May I correct one point of fact? The motion that we will discuss on Tuesday will make no provision for salaries to be paid to the four Members who have not taken the Oath. It will provide for them to have access to the precincts, as they had throughout the years of Conservative Government up until 1997. Such access will not differ from the access of those individuals. However, that provision of access to the precincts will not apply to any members of staff they bring with them, who will be subject to exactly the same scrutiny that any other member of the public or member of staff working for Members of Parliament undergo.

Michael Clapham: I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 557 in my name.
	[That this House is gravely concerned about the implications for asbestos-induced mesothelioma sufferers and their families by a recent Court of Appeal judgment that a claimant cannot recover damages if he was exposed to asbestos by more than one employer on the grounds that it is not possible to say which one was to blame, ending a situation of joining defendants and apportioning liability accordingly that has lasted for more than 20 years; is further concerned that the judgment directs that claimants may have a claim under the Pneumoconiosis (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, costing the Exchequer tens of millions of pounds each year, and creating conditions for the insurance industry to escape its responsibility; and calls for this injustice to be righted by legislation if necessary.]
	I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the horrendous decision made in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday that people suffering from asbestos-induced cancer can no longer claim compensation when more than one employer is involved, on the grounds that it cannot be determined which employer the fibre that started the cancer came from. The judgment went on to suggest that people in that position may claim under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979, which was set up to provide compensation when the insurer could not be traced. The Act does not provide compensation in this case—it is not an alternative to common law damages. The Appeal Court declined leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Will my right hon. Friend bring the issue to the notice of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with a view to considering the possibility of bringing in a small Bill to rectify that massive injustice?

Robin Cook: Obviously, I cannot commit myself to legislation without consulting my colleagues and reflecting on the matter. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the judgment, and can understand the sense of injustice and hard feeling experienced by those who lost such a case. I can see that the implications of the principle contained in the judgment could go much wider than such cases. I am informed that the Association of British Insurers is consulting its members on their response to the judgment, and I hope that a way forward can be found that will not deny remedy and justice to those involved.

David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate—next week or in the first week of January—on industrial relations in the civil service? Given that the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions are on strike and that that may cause immeasurable difficulties for vulnerable people seeking benefits or advice in the pre-Christmas period, and that staff of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are also on strike, thus meaning that farmers will not receive the payments owed them under IACS—the integrated administration and control system—which in turn will cause them great difficulties, especially after the events of last year, is it not clear that macho management is not working and that it is certainly not delivering for the public?

Robin Cook: I would be the last person to defend macho management—or macho anything else. I very much hope that a common way forward can be found.
	The strike in the Department for Work and Pensions relates to the introduction of changes that will be very much in the interest of the public. Although I hope that we can find agreement on taking forward those changes with the support of the staff—without staff feeling threatened in any way—our duty is obviously to the public and to ensure that we provide them with the best possible service.

Mark Fisher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the good sense and imagination that runs through his modernisation paper and especially on his comments that the proposals are a first step towards changing practices and the balance between this place and the Executive, and that the process will continue. I also welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the nature—albeit limited—of the free vote next Tuesday. That seems to go some way towards recognising that membership of the House and the use of its facilities are not in the gift of the Government—they are a matter for the House. It is the House—properly—on a free vote that should decide such matters.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is correct about the free vote for Members of the party. He is entirely free to vote as he wishes on Tuesday. I would have neither the temerity nor the courage to advise him how to vote on Tuesday.
	I welcome his comments on the modernisation proposals. I also agree with him that, important though the package is, work will remain to be done and that modernisation will not stop with this programme.

Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the motion that the Leader of the House will introduce next Tuesday, is he aware that the vast majority of Members take their responsibilities to Parliament very seriously indeed? Several of those Members are currently in shared accommodation and in accommodation that is not up to the standard of that occupied by other Members. Why the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting to the House that he will give Members who have no intention of taking part in its proceedings the same sort of space that he gives Members who take this place seriously?

Robin Cook: Against the historic achievement of the Good Friday agreement, the first-ever verifiable decommissioning in the history of Northern Ireland and the election of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to argue over whether we can find a room for those Members does not match the gravity of that process in Northern Ireland.

John Cryer: Following an earlier question, may I remind my right hon. Friend that the board of Consignia has a long history of ignoring its work force and failing to consult them on major decisions? I was involved in a campaign to keep open the sorting office at Mount Pleasant in east London and visited the board of the then Royal Mail with three of my hon. Friends. I saw then the contempt with which the board treated the work force—collectively sounding like a third-rate 1980s management textbook.
	Massive job losses are in the pipeline. Some of my constituents and people from the poorest parts of London will lose their jobs with Consignia. When we are talking about job losses on that scale, it is a matter for the Government and for the elected representatives who represent those people who are on the receiving end. Can we have a debate?

Robin Cook: Of course, my hon. Friend raises a very important priority—ensuring that Consignia's management consults fully and tries to reach consensus with the work force, because the problem that faces Consignia is common to the management and the work force. I am very much in favour of Select Committees having access to all available information and to hearing, whenever possible, Government policy announcements. I was a bit taken aback to hear the scale of redundancy that was announced first to a Select Committee. I hope that the management will now remedy that by moving quickly to try to reach agreement and a way forward with the work force.

Crispin Blunt: On Monday this week, the report that the Home Secretary commissioned from Ted Cantle produced its first recommendation saying that the rights and, in particular, the responsibilities of citizenship need to be more clearly established and should be formalised into a statement of allegiance. That view was endorsed by the ministerial group on the issue, which states that the public realm is founded on negotiation and debate between competing viewpoints at the same time as it upholds inviolable rights and duties. Given the motion that will be moved in the right hon. Gentleman's name on Tuesday and the fact that the Ministers who made that comment will be invited to support it, is this an example of joined-up Government or double standards?

Robin Cook: Not in the slightest. The citizenship of Britain of course embraces the fundamental right to vote in a parliamentary democracy. Many of the citizens of those four constituencies have exercised that right and they have elected those four Members of Parliament. The House has to ask itself whether it is consistent with what we preach in parliamentary democracy not even to let them into the precincts. The hon. Gentleman was a special adviser to the Conservative Government, so I find it surprising that he never expressed that view to those whom he advised at the time who, throughout their period in office, let those four Members into the precincts.

Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that there have been requests for other debates from both sides of the House. Is it not passing strange, therefore, that the Government have selected next Tuesday for the debate to allow Members who have not taken their seats to use facilities in the House, especially when that party has not been prepared to nominate people to the police board and to take a fuller role in Northern Ireland? At a time when we have been debating international terrorism, is that not giving a wrong signal? The shadow Leader of the House said that today was a red letter day—perhaps some hon. Members and many people outside the House will think that it might be a white feather day.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman's party sits on the Executive and the Government of Northern Ireland with one of the very four Members whom we are discussing. I cannot accept that it is right to sit down at the same meetings of the Executive in Belfast with him, but to say that he cannot even get in to use the Vote Office, the Library or the travel office here. That seems to fail to recognise the logic of the process, to which the hon. Gentleman has contributed greatly.

George Osborne: The Leader of the House said that the Sinn Fein-IRA Members would not be eligible for parliamentary salaries. However, will they be eligible for parliamentary allowances? If so, will not the British taxpayer hand over almost £500,000 to Sinn Fein-IRA? Will the right hon. Gentleman also investigate whether the ribbons in the Members' Cloakroom can support the weight of a kalashnikov?

Robin Cook: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's last question is worthy of the House of Commons or its exchanges. I happily confirm that the motion will provide for allowances to be payable on the same basis as those for any other Member of Parliament who has been elected by his constituents.

Peter Lilley: To inform the debate on access to the House, will the Leader of the House make available the information about the terrorist activities of the Members concerned? At least one of them, Martin McGuinness, was to my personal knowledge the commandant of the IRA in Londonderry. I interviewed him when he was in that capacity and, during the interview, he told me that he had had a dozen Catholic informers killed. If he has, indeed, put that bloody past behind him and now believes that constitutional change should come about only by operating within the constitution, is not the appropriate test that he takes the Oath?

Robin Cook: Martin McGuinness is, at present, the Minister of Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He plays a full part in the government of Northern Ireland and in the administration of the education system there. I think that it is wrong for us to say that that is all right for the people of Northern Ireland but that we will not allow him anywhere within the precincts of Westminster. As to what may or may not have been his past or the past of any of the others, we shall not get peace or make progress on the peace process if we constantly start from the very beginning and do not accept that some of these people have played a part in achieving a period of peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

Anne McIntosh: The House will recall the tragic murder of a special constable on the A64 in north Yorkshire. What does the Leader of the House propose that I say to the constable's family and my constituents in the Vale of York who are deeply distressed to hear of the despicable motion that the Leader of the House has put before the House.
	In relation to the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill, does the Leader of the House agree with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that only a token gesture towards decommissioning has been made?

Robin Cook: The de Chastelain commission described the act of decommissioning as significant. That is the basis on which we proceed.
	On the hon. Lady's point about what she should say to her constituents, she might tell them whatever her predecessor said before 1997 when the four people involved were admitted to the precincts and had access to the facilities to which we shall propose on Tuesday they have access. Our proposal will be made in circumstances that are very different from those of 1997 when they had such access to the precincts. However, it is precisely to prevent murders and violence and the grief of relatives in the future that we signed the Good Friday agreement and entered into the peace process.
	I make no apology for having a peace process that provides a relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland did not know beforehand. If we want that peace process to continue and we want to avoid murders in the future, we have to show our willingness to enter into that process.

Andrew Turner: Although I associate myself with the comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends—I include my hon. Friends on the Unionist Benches—I wish to raise a matter that concerns my constituents in east Cowes. I refer to the loss of 650 jobs—one third of the work force—at GKN Westland that has been announced today as result of the downturn in the British aerospace industry. Would it not be a better use of time on Tuesday next week to debate the downturn in the British aerospace industry and what the Government propose to do to help those who are suffering because of it?

Robin Cook: I fully sympathise with the position of all those, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who suffer as a result of the recession in the aerospace industry. That reflects the reality in aviation at present.
	As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from previous exchanges, Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have sought to do whatever they can to make sure that we enable the aviation industry to come out of this difficult period. I am particularly concerned that we act to ensure that the skilled and experienced teams of people who will be needed in the future are available when the industry returns to normal.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister opens the debate next Tuesday so that he can explain to the House and to the nation the extraordinary contrast between his laudable pursuit of the al-Qaeda network, which attacked the two tallest buildings in New York, and his craven behaviour towards the network of the IRA-Sinn Fein—they are inextricably linked in his own words—which attacked the two tallest buildings in London, namely the NatWest tower and Canary Wharf in 1996? These people whom he is inviting into the House should, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) suggested, be providing answers in criminal proceedings instead of being asked into the House.

Robin Cook: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's position—I suspect that he may be prepared to follow it through—is that we would never have signed the Good Friday agreement. [Interruption.] He agrees with me on that. We would still have the IRA as an armed organisation at war with the British state. We would still have the IRA murdering people in Britain and letting off bombs in London. That is what the hon. Gentleman would embrace rather than the peace process.

Henry Bellingham: The Leader of the House mentioned the progress that has been made in the peace process, but that came about only at the last moment, at the eleventh hour and three quarters. Is he aware that there is every possibility that IRA-Sinn Fein will revert to their campaign of violence and terrorism against the British state? If their Members had taken their allowances and moved into their offices, what would happen if they did revert to that campaign?

Robin Cook: Plainly, in the event of a breach of the Good Friday agreement and a reversion to the war with the bullet and the gun, many policies and attitudes will change, but it is precisely so that we do not have that reversion to violence that it is important that we maintain momentum in the peace process. We must be willing to show that we ourselves, and not only the other side, are committed to maintaining that momentum.

Asbestos Victims

John Battle: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
	deadly asbestos dust, which affects not only hundreds of my constituents but thousands of people throughout Britain.
	This issue concerns not only families who are losing court cases but those who win cases, because even they are being denied their hard-won, legitimate compensation.
	It is now estimated that as well as the hundreds who have died or who are dying from mesothelioma simply because they lived in the neighbourhood of the J. W. Roberts factory in Leeds before it closed in 1956, there may be as many as 1,500 mesothelioma victims in Britain every year, and that number is rising rapidly. Five years ago, and after seven years of campaigning, we won a court case and, in a landmark judgment, proved that Turner and Newall, which had taken over J. W. Roberts, was responsible for polluting people in Armley in my constituency. A handful of compensation claims have been paid.
	In September, however, Turner and Newall was taken over by an American company, Federal Mogul. On 1 October, it applied in the UK courts to put its UK subsidiaries into administration. That decision immediately blocked compensation payments to Turner and Newall's asbestos victims. The administrators now refuse to deal with any compensation claims, despite the original court judgment supporting the victims. Cheques to victims have bounced. One victim received a letter offering compensation, and in the very next post, a notice saying that the offer was worthless because the company was in administration. That victim has since died.
	As we know, administration proceedings can take years, but the administrator had three months—which are up at the end of this month—to produce a financial statement and hold a creditors meeting. However, the parent company in America has already ring-fenced its liabilities, and it can continue trading and making a profit. This is not only about a few cases in Armley or about Turner and Newall; it could affect all asbestos claims in Britain.
	This has been an annus horribilis for asbestos victims in Britain. Judgments seem to protect the companies rather than the victims, as we saw in the Chester Street case in January, the Fairchild case in February and the Turner and Newall case in October. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) earlier, there has been another such judgment in the Fairchild case this week.
	Asbestos victims are vulnerable and totally innocent, and they die of the worst forms of cancer imaginable. They did not bring it on themselves, and they deserve compensation. We urgently need a full debate so that we can have a co-ordinated Government response to ensure that victims get compensation and polluting companies pay. Tragically, these victims do not have years to live, and they cannot afford to wait. They need to be given hope by a debate in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

Euro and Sterling Choice

Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to permit the use of the euro as well as the pound sterling as legal tender in the performance of financial obligations at or above a certain value; to provide for dual pricing of goods and services at or above that value; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 11 January, and to be printed [Bill 70].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Animal Health Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Annual report on animal diseases

'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 10—
	"10A Annual report on animal diseases
	The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament in each calendar year a report on measures taken by Government departments and agencies and other public bodies to prevent the importation into the United Kingdom of the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A.".'.—[Mrs. Ann Winterton.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Ann Winterton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Annual review of import controls—
	'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 10.
	"10A Annual review of import controls
	(1) The Ministers shall prepare a report during each financial year reviewing all of the activities of government departments, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, port health authorities and other relevant public agencies directed to the prevention of the introduction of disease into or within England and Wales through the importation of animals and other things, including their making of orders under section 10 of this Act, assessing the effectiveness of the action taken, and proposing such further action as may, in the opinion of the Ministers, be required to further reduce the risk of disease being imported.
	(2) The Ministers shall, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, lay their report before Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.".'.

Ann Winterton: I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has responsibility for animal health, is on the Front Bench, having returned, no doubt triumphantly, from a conference that the Government organised in Belgium on the eradication of foot and mouth disease. A press release on the conference says that the Secretary of State addressed it on the way in which the outbreak developed and was tackled. However, she did not tell the conference the cause of the outbreak, which is one reason why the Opposition have tabled the new clause.

David Drew: A bit late.

Ann Winterton: It is not late. It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we are not in government; I remind him that both foot and mouth outbreaks, in 1967 and this year, occurred when a Labour Government were in office. In 1967, the relevant Minister handled the matter in an exemplary fashion and, as a result, the very good Northumberland report was produced, which pointed to the way forward for the future. I concede that, sadly, successive Governments have not done enough work on preventing further outbreaks of animal disease from being imported into the country.
	The saying "Prevention is better than cure" is echoed by the farming community today, despite the introduction of the Bill, which was conceived in haste to put right legal problems encountered during the foot and mouth epidemic and also to deal with matters relating to scrapie, about which there is no hurry at all. However, the Government have not addressed the real problem facing the country—our vulnerability to future infection. The United Kingdom will be as vulnerable as ever to the importation of animal, plant and even human disease, even after the enactment of the Bill.

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will know that, although the Government introduced the Bill before their own inquiries reported, Professor Mercer's report for Devon county council makes action on imports the first recommendation in his conclusion.

Ann Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Minister and an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. She is right; in fact she has uttered the words that I would have uttered a little later in my speech; in fact, I probably will still utter them as the point is well worth making again. Well done Devon is all that I have got to say. Would that the Government had tackled the problem as a matter of urgency.
	New clause 1 would oblige Ministers to conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of actions by all the agencies concerned to prevent animal disease, including foot and mouth, from being brought into the United Kingdom. We are an island nation; many farmers have asked me why the sea that surrounds us, which should form a protective barrier, has not done so.
	Our defences against the importation of disease are minimal. At our airports and seaports, checks on baggage and goods in transit are infrequent, but when they are made, more often than not they reveal illegal imports of food, particularly meat. Many people travel extensively and visitors to the United States of America, Australia or New Zealand cannot fail to be impressed by the extremely tough and thorough precautions undertaken by those countries to minimise the risk of importing disease. I admire the policies of those countries and their actions, which have proved to be extremely successful.
	Why should the United Kingdom leave itself wide open to unnecessary risk of disease in the future, and why have the Government not taken any meaningful action to clamp down on illegal imports? I have no doubt that the usual talking shops will have been set up between representatives of the various agencies involved, such as Customs and Excise, the Food Standards Agency, local and port health authorities and the Home Office, in order to find a way in which import controls could be strengthened, but what action has been taken?

Richard Bacon: None.

Ann Winterton: What decisions have Ministers made to protect animal, plant and human health?

Richard Bacon: None.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend takes the words from my mouth. Answer is there none. What a disgrace. What an insult to the farming community, which has suffered so much as a result of Government incompetence and inaction. How much longer must we wait until the nettle is grasped—

Richard Bacon: Until the next Conservative Government. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. He is very enthusiastic, and so he should be. The Government's inaction will have been noted by people in the country. They look to the Government to do something to help the situation, instead of doing nothing. I am not sure whether Ministers are prepared to take the necessary action to protect the United Kingdom from a scourge similar to the recent foot and mouth epidemic.
	We may never discover the precise cause of the outbreak, mainly because the Government have refused point-blank to hold a full, independent public inquiry. At least the Devon inquiry undertaken by the county council, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred, points us in the right direction and recommends that prevention of disease through importation should be given the highest priority.
	Many organisations involved in the rearing of livestock have commented on the present unsatisfactory arrangements. In December 2000 the National Pig Association forwarded comments as evidence to the then Select Committee on Agriculture regarding the Government's handling of the classical swine fever outbreak in August last year. Those comments included criticism of the lack of speed of Government action, and went on:
	"The NPA fears that . . . UK pig producers are unreasonably exposed to a repeat outbreak of a disease such as Classical Swine Fever, due to the Government inaction on effective control of the import of contaminated meat."
	The association continued with an analysis of the lack of a governmental contingency plan:
	"The NPA fears that the Government will wash its hands of the consequent problems, in the event of such an outbreak."
	As a result of the classical swine fever outbreak, the NPA had clearly understood the Government's irresponsible attitude to the amount of food imports entering the country, which remains as big a risk today as it was last year or in February 2001.

Elliot Morley: I hear the hon. Lady's allegations about lack of action, inadequacy and illegal imports, but what firm evidence has she about the scale of illegal imports? What evidence has she that the measures that we have taken are not deterring illegal imports? I accept that if an activity is illegal, one cannot guarantee that it will never occur, but what is the evidence to back up the hon. Lady's allegations leading to all those terrible consequences?

Ann Winterton: It does not become the Minister to be as complacent as he appears about the serious problem of animal, plant and human diseases that may come into this country in illegally imported meat and meat products. He is right that no Government can guarantee that no disease will enter the country in that way, but I wonder whether he has recently travelled extensively as a private individual—[Interruption.] Would he like to intervene on that point? I think that I heard him mention checks from a sedentary position. What checks?

Elliot Morley: On the claims that are being made about measures taken in America and Australia, I have been to those countries comparatively recently and I must say that I have not noticed any particular differences from the checks and security in our country. I am not complacent about this matter. Some issues need to be reviewed and we want to do some tightening up. We are and have been doing that, so the claim that no action has been taken is completely wrong.

Ann Winterton: When the Minister makes his speech, he can outline precisely what action has been taken. Frankly, it does not add up to a row of beans. I remind him that he made the following statement in a written answer:
	"The current epidemic has been caused by a specific strain of the foot and mouth virus (PanAsian Strain 0) which has occurred in a number of countries around the world. The precise means of introduction of the virus into Great Britain is unknown and the subject of continuing investigations,"—
	he can tell us later what those investigations have found so far—
	"but is most likely to have been introduced in illegally imported meat or meat products."—[Official Report, 9 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 445W.]
	There is a problem, and as I develop my speech, I shall show the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken no meaningful action whatever.

Angela Browning: I was astonished by what the Minister said just now in his intervention. Many years ago, I regularly did business with American companies and travelled to America. Some 10 or 15 years ago, it was a matter of routine that the Americans asked one to declare both in documentary evidence and in person at the airport whether one was carrying any foodstuffs or plant materials. They have sniffer dogs at their airports. The Minister must whisk through the VIP lounge and never see ordinary people.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend makes her point very well and explains the reason why I asked the Minister whether he was travelling as a private individual. I, too, travel to the United States of America, and I do so at least once year. I am very much aware of the measures that that country takes to ensure that visitors do not import any disease through meat or meat products, and I admire it for what it does. I have also had the good fortune to travel to New Zealand and Australia. In New Zealand, they spray the plane. Elsewhere, one has to take off one's shoes. I know that visitors to New Zealand and Australia who have come from a farm or had an address at a farm have been put through checks to the 10th degree. Sniffer dogs can almost tell whether one has eaten an apple on the plane, never mind whether one has brought one into the country.

Richard Bacon: I, too, have been to the United States and Australia. Indeed, I have worked in both countries and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I know how strict their controls are. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if the Minister will not take notice of us, he should take notice of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)? On Second Reading, he said:
	"As a regular traveller to the United States, I know how vigorously one is questioned there about any products that one is taking into the country. We have no such procedures".—[Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 620.]
	Of course, the hon. Gentleman probably does not go through the VIP lounge and must do what Opposition Members have to do.

Diana Organ: I, too, have been to America—we have reached the moment when we all say where we have been on our holidays. I had to hand over chewed bits of carrot and apple that small children had been eating on the journey. I was delighted to be able to do that. However, the questions that we are asked on entry to the United States are a formality; 11 September is testament to the fact that security in their airports is not as good as ours.

Ann Winterton: I was in America on 11 September because one of our children lives in Hoboken. We were on top of the twin towers on the previous Saturday evening. Internal flights in America have poorer security, but that does not apply to international flights. When people enter the USA, they put the fear of God into you, for good reason. When people enter the United Kingdom, the opposite happens. I shall consider that contrast in more detail later when I deal with some of the measures that the Government have introduced, which have proved useless.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend probably knows that the 14 investigations at Heathrow found five tonnes of illegally imported meat. In every example that was drawn to the airport authorities' attention, illegally imported meat had been brought into the country. In some cases, blood was pouring out of suitcases. The authorities would have investigated more cases if they had the money and the facilities. We should debate such matters this afternoon instead of considering ways in which to cull more of our creatures.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and he is right. There appears to be no co-ordination in the effort against illegal imports.

Elliot Morley: That is an exaggeration.

Ann Winterton: I shall ignore that point and get on with my speech.
	The Government received another warning about the danger of illegal imports. On 11 March, two weeks after the first outbreak of foot and mouth, Clive Lawrence, director of Ciel Logistics wrote to the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Ciel Logistics is approved to collect and recover consignments from airline warehouses and take them through the port health border inspection post. In his letter, Mr. Lawrence highlights the fact that the Ministry and Customs and Excise had long suspected that products were being illegally imported as passenger baggage, but did not have the resources to check. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) made that point. The letter states:
	"The issue had to be addressed when baggage handlers at Heathrow refused to handle the suitcases due to the smell and the blood coming out of the bags. Inspections carried out on Nigerian flights on the 7th, 8th and 11th May resulted in 600 kgs of detained foodstuffs."
	Mr. Lawrence continues:
	"On one flight from Nigeria on 15th May, a check resulted in 2500 kgs being detained from passenger luggage. It contained various bush meats and a large quantity of maggot infested fish both wet and dry. We also recovered one whole dead deer freshly slaughtered in a suitcase."
	The mind boggles.
	Mr. Lawrence did not receive a reply from the then Minister for some time. In a recent parliamentary answer, the Under-Secretary referred to "improved publicity" to ensure that travellers are aware of import restrictions, and claimed that
	"at least 20 per cent."—[Official Report, 29 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1085W.]
	of legal meat imports are being subjected to physical checks. That may be because of the imports from Belgium that were stopped recently. I believe that two or three consignments were stopped because of the checks on legal imports.
	As I said earlier, I do not believe that travellers who enter the country are informed that they should not bring in any animal or plant produce, nor are they questioned or required to fill in any forms to say that they are not doing so.
	When we come into the arrivals section as ordinary travellers, there are, to the best of my knowledge— I checked when I last went abroad—no big notices telling us what we should or should not bring in. The only evidence of "improved publicity" that I could find in my local airport, Manchester—one of the most successful and best run in the United Kingdom—was one small, peeling poster that had been placed in the departure area rather than in arrivals. That is quite extraordinary and pathetic. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the precise action taken since February to eliminate illegal imports.
	The animal origin legislation is based on EU directive 97/98. The Miscellaneous Products of Animal Origin (Import Conditions) Regulations 1999 were made on 26 January 1999, laid before Parliament on 3 February and came into force in the United Kingdom on 1 March that year. Any product of animal origin arriving at a United Kingdom port or any other European port needed to be inspected for port health clearance before being allowed free circulation in the Community, yet Her Majesty's Customs and Excise continues to claim that it does not have the resources to continue to target the flights that more commonly carry illegal imports. That must be looked at, because the dangers are inherently greater from some parts of the world than from others.
	Mr. Lawrence also has proof of the fact that the meats are often contaminated. His company found that one consignment was smuggled through in December 2000 as a cargo of vegetables and undeclared to customs. It was investigated and found to contain 15 dead monkeys and some tortoise legs. Laboratory checks showed a risk of Ebola contamination. Fortunately, that consignment was found, but it is generally acknowledged that the majority of luggage goes unchecked.
	I wonder whether the Minister has seen the video prepared by the National Pig Association, which highlights the dangers facing this country from Ebola contamination. Although we are talking about animal health today, in cases such as that it is clear that plant health and human health are also implicated. If Ebola and other viruses about which our doctors know virtually nothing are imported, the effects will be far greater than the devastating effects of the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
	On 4 December 2001, the Minister responded to a written parliamentary question about the additional biosecurity measures that have been implemented to check imports since February. He stated:
	"Adequate measures are already in place to control legally presented imports of meat and meat products."
	That may well be true; I have mentioned recent finds of legally imported meat of a cheap or substandard nature coming into the country. I wonder whether those checks would also have applied to the chicken imported from Thailand and elsewhere in the far east—reported on the front page of, I think, yesterday's Daily Express—that had been contaminated by pork and was full of water. That chicken was being used by the catering industry. Very strict checks and conditions should be placed on the catering industry and others to prevent the importation of such cheap substandard produce. We have been talking about legally presented imports, but does the Minister choose to disregard those meat imports that are not legally presented? That would appear to be the case from the lack of action taken by the Government.
	The Minister's written reply continued:
	"Port health authorities and local authorities are requested to undertake checks at port of entry and at premises of destination to ensure that products not eligible for trade are detected."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 261-62W.]
	Will the Minister clarify the divisions of responsibility for food import checks? He says that port health authorities and local authorities are requested to undertake checks, yet the Food Standards Agency also holds responsibility. Will he confirm the exact role it plays in import checks? Will he consider giving that Government agency, which has gained cross-party support for its vigilant attitude to food safety, full overall responsibility, or should a new body be formed to take responsibility for checking for illegal imports?
	The National Farmers Union has written to Members, stating that the range of different agencies involved and the undoubted practical problems associated with enforcement are putting the United Kingdom livestock sector under continued threat. Who could argue with that?

Bill Wiggin: Is not the FSA a responsibility of the Department of Health? That is another example of a lack of joined-up government.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. The FSA relates to health, but it also relates to animal health. My point is that there is no joined-up government; it is absolutely disjointed. Various bodies hold various responsibilities—there appears to be no coherent policy whatever. I genuinely believe that the Government must urgently address that matter.
	The NFU also questions whether the Government have shown sufficient commitment on the vital issue of illegal imports. Although the union acknowledges that the United Kingdom may never be able to achieve 100 per cent. protection from the import of animal disease
	"much more can and must be done to reduce the risk of a re-run of this year's hugely damaging and costly events."
	The Minister has told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that, in his view,
	"the risks of a further outbreak remain very high"
	and we all agree that there may very well be cases before the outbreak is definitely over.
	Why, then, are the Government considering legislation that I believe to be hasty and insensitive to the needs of the farming community and that allows the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to plan for future outbreaks? Why do not the Government take preventive action and consider eradicating the possibility of further epidemics by removing the very source of disease through stronger food import controls?

David Taylor: The hon. Lady makes the strong point that, as well as introducing new measures to control future outbreaks, the Bill ought to reduce the likelihood of outbreaks or the rate at which they develop. No doubt she will support my new clauses 9 and 10.

Ann Winterton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will support new clause 1, as one good turn deserves another. The point of tabling my new clause is to return us once again to everything that this country has gone through since February and the cost, not just to taxpayers, but to farmers, their families, animals, DEFRA officials and veterinary surgeons. The answer is prevention, which is the first issue we should consider. Through tabling the new clause, I seek from the Minister an indication that the Government are serious.

David Drew: Is the hon. Lady saying that the Animal Health Act 1981, which gives powers regarding the control of imports, is insufficient? If so, why has she not tabled a new clause to that effect?

Ann Winterton: I am saying that, even if the Act were sufficient, the powers are not being used. I have tabled a new clause that would make the Minister responsible produce an annual report outlining precisely the actions taken. It is a spur to make the Government solve the problem more quickly.
	Whatever mechanism is used, action should be taken. The new clause may not be perfect, but it is an honest attempt to raise what I believe to be the most important issue facing the agriculture community and, indeed, people living in the United Kingdom.

Simon Thomas: Nothing in new clause 1, or indeed new clause 4, would strengthen powers relating to animal health. What we seek is a commitment from the Government to be more open in their measures to crack down on illegal meat imports and deal with the concerns of those in the farming industry, who often describe in anecdotal terms what is happening in this country. Surely, if the Bill seeks to penalise farmers for poor biosecurity, we should seek from the Government a similar undertaking to be as open and honest as possible in all their efforts to ensure that both illegal and legal meat imports are of the highest quality.

Ann Winterton: That is a sound point. We look to the Government to take the necessary action. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I would have liked the new clause to go much further—but we must be realistic and appreciate that, in the numbers game, it is hardly likely that the Government will accept this modest proposal. I am trying to give them an opportunity to accept it, to demonstrate their acceptance by what they do from now on, and to place in the House a record of what they have done. If by any chance they feel that they have not the necessary powers, they should bear in mind that, as the hon. Gentleman hinted, they could have introduced them in the Bill. They have introduced enough draconian and sweeping powers that run contrary to natural justice. I am amazed that they have not put first things first on this occasion.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: I will. I must make some progress after that, but I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is to be my ally.

David Taylor: Not on this occasion.
	The hon. Lady welcomed and endorsed the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that illegal meat imports should be of the highest quality. Can she tell us how we can attain such an elusive goal?

Ann Winterton: I think the hon. Gentleman jests. He knows quite well that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did not mean that at all.

David Taylor: He said it.

Ann Winterton: If he said it, no doubt he will wish to correct the impression that he gave. I know the hon. Member for Ceredigion—I know the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) as well, of course—and that is not a view that he would ever express or espouse. I shall rush to his defence, and pull out my trusty sword. [Interruption.] There will be no blood on the carpet this afternoon; that would not do. I fear that you are about to rule us out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I had better get on.
	As I have said, new clause 1 is very modest. An annual review of import controls would ensure that the situation remained under constant appraisal, and—a more urgent requirement—that local authorities and central Government adopted a joined-up and collective approach to import checks. I urge the Government to consider the proposal carefully, and then to implement an annual review with immediate effect. It would cost them nothing apart from a lot of good will, and they would do much good in the process.
	On 14 June, the Netherlands banned the import of pigs and fresh pigmeat from Spain after an outbreak of swine fever. That move by Dutch officials strengthened action already taken by the European Commission, which at the time banned live exports from the region of the country affected. Why could the United Kingdom not adopt a similar approach to defend our shores from a repeat infection of animal diseases that have such catastrophic consequences for farmers in rural areas, for our economy and, indeed, for our international reputation?
	We believe that it should be Government policy to defend the high standards of British agriculture, especially those that underpin Britain's exemplary record on animal welfare. Food imports that do not match the standards required of British farmers by law must not be allowed to undercut British produce, and thus undermine British standards.
	I urge the Government to ban unfair agriculture imports—not, I hasten to add, imports that are unfair in terms of pricing, but those that have not reached the quality that we expect our farmers to produce. The Government have repeatedly refused to go along that route.

Elliot Morley: It is illegal.

Ann Winterton: The Minister says that it is illegal. That means that we have imported legally the chicken breasts that I mentioned earlier that were on the front page of the Daily Express.

Elliot Morley: There is a misconception. I have heard it before. A proposal to ban imports that do not meet our standards would be illegal. All imports into this country have to meet the same standards that are applied in relation to the EU: for example, standards on slaughterhouses. It is true that some products and production methods in the United Kingdom are higher than those standards. There are various reasons for that and various choices, but all imported meat has to meet those EU standards. In that case, they are legal. A proposal to ban them would be illegal.

Ann Winterton: The recent outbreak started in February. If the Government had been the French Government, they would have immediately stuck two fingers in the air—[Interruption.] It may cost them a lot of money, but I bet that our producers will not receive compensation for the lack of business and the terrible difficulties that they have faced because of the French ban on British beef. If foot and mouth had been imported into France, as it was into this country, the French would have immediately, not knowing what the source was—the UK Government do not yet know—ceased the import of meat and meat products from countries where there was endemic foot and mouth. Consumers and farming communities in the UK would have liked that sort of action in order to protect animal health and human health in the UK.

James Paice: Is not the fallacy in the Minister's argument illustrated by the fact that recently five plants in China have been licensed by the EU to export chicken meat to Europe, yet they have not been properly or fully inspected by EU inspectors? There is no way of knowing whether those meat products will meet the standards required in this country. Whatever the theory may be, in practice those products are coming in and do not meet our standards.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally strong point that cannot be refuted. It is disgraceful that there are double standards. What the EU says is not necessarily carried out. I urge those in the catering industry and in supermarket chains, which hold such power over the sale and processing of food, to recall what my hon. Friend has said—not to buy products from those plants and instead to buy from plants in the UK, where the birds have been raised to a good standard of husbandry.

David Drew: The hon. Lady may be intrigued to know that, during its visit to Brussels and to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, the Select Committee on Agriculture took up that point. Representatives of third-world countries regarded the demands of the EU to inspect as somewhat protectionist, so there is a balance to be reached. It is not as clear-cut as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) alleges. A degree of checking goes on. It can always be improved, but the position is not that clear cut.

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I am not in a position to know whether the plants that he knows about have been inspected properly. I am not so concerned about whether China believes that we are trying to protect our market. If we are, we are doing so for good reasons of animal husbandry and for the quality of the food produced.
	I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his travels. I understand that the Select Committee will be going even further afield in due course. No doubt in the Tea Room he will tell me of his experiences. As he travels, not as an ordinary person, but as a member of a Select Committee, I hope that he will take the opportunity to go around every airport, open his eyes and look at what other countries do. If he goes to New Zealand, or even perhaps South Africa and the United States, that will be a very good experience for him. What he sees will bear out everything that I have said.
	I think that I have spoken for far too long—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hear, hear? Everyone has been asking me to give way and I have been very generous. If I had not given way, Members would have been critical. I apologise if I have spoken for too long, but I heartily recommend the new clause. It is not necessarily perfect. It does not necessarily go far enough but it puts down a solid marker as to what the Government might do to bring immediate improvement to the dreadful situation that faces the UK as a result of the importation of illegal meat and meat products.

Diana Organ: In health policy, whether it is about human or animal health, the essence is to prevent rather than to cure. Any health policy should include measures to prevent the disease, rather than deal with the symptoms. That is a positive way forward. As a result, I support new clause 4.
	It is important that we take this issue forward. The terrible events of foot and mouth over the summer show that we must do something to make controls on imports much tighter. We do not yet know how foot and mouth came into this country. There are three inquiries on the go but they have not published their reports yet. The most important one in relation to this issue is the inquiry about lessons to be learned, which is chaired by Dr. Iain Anderson. I believe that it starts tomorrow and will publish within six months of starting, but its terms of reference are important:
	"To make recommendations for the way in which Government should handle any future major animal disease outbreak, in the light of the lessons identified from the handling of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain.
	In its first recommendation, the Devon inquiry made the same point: the lesson to be learned is about the protection of this country from the invasion of disease. That recommendation said:
	"We therefore find that methods of import control must be tightened to the highest international standards and if necessary be the subject of new legislation. It is important that new powers are implemented properly at ports and airports with the increase in staffing that that implies."
	Another inquiry also supported that view. Following the 1967 outbreak, the Northumberland inquiry recommended that we should tighten and have greater security on import controls at ports and airports to stop disease coming in. The Government have chosen to introduce the Bill before any of the inquiries that are examining the 2001 outbreak report, but in the light of recommendations from those other notable reports, it is right that new clause 4 should be included in the legislation.
	We are not sure where the FMD outbreak came from. It is highly likely—but it is only speculation—that it came from the importation of illegal meat that entered the food chain, possibly because certain farmers did not observe the recommendations on the use of swill. As we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), other countries appear to have tighter controls, and we have rehearsed the reports of holiday entries into north America, which has greater questioning, monitoring and controls. According to the hon. Lady, it seems that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee may have the opportunity to visit New Zealand, and it would look carefully at the import controls in place in Auckland should it do so.
	We do not seem to have those import controls at our ports and airports and it is right to put them into legislation. However, to do so, we need more resources. The current officials of the port animal health teams do not have sufficient resources to carry out the checks that would be necessary. It is right that we should put the resources in. One can always call for more resources, but if we are seeking to improve our biosecurity, they will be necessary. At the moment, through the Bill and other measures, we ask farmers to look to biosecurity when there is an outbreak of disease, whether of classical swine fever or FMD.

Angela Browning: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady's remarks, but I am puzzled on one point. It is clear that new measures will require new resources, but why does new clause 4 not contain a recommendation to that effect?

Diana Organ: The new clause would provide for an annual report, and it would automatically follow that better import controls could not be instituted without resources. If we are to have good national biosecurity, we need to put the resources in. The Minister has rightly said that we need better awareness among the travelling public. However, the problem lies not with the naive travelling public, but with those people who deliberately import meat illegally. The odd traveller who has a deer or a tortoise in his suitcase is something that we might want to check, but we do not need the new measures for him. The problem is those people who are deliberately engaging in illegal trade and bringing substandard food products into this country.

James Paice: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says, but she cannot be allowed to get away with asserting that we should be worried only about those people who, to paraphrase her remarks, are in it commercially. We have heard many stories of people bringing large quantities of meat into Heathrow in private suitcases, and they presumably do not do so on spec but have a destination for it. The problem goes further than that. What should be done about the countless number of much smaller items such as ham sandwiches and other consumer items that are brought in? [Interruption.] Before the hon. Lady seeks to ridicule that question, I assure her that if she tried to take such items into Australia or the US she would not get past the first post. We should take the same care in this country.

Diana Organ: We need a risk assessment. We cannot absolutely eradicate all risk of people bringing in the last little bit of a ham sandwich tucked into their pockets. In the examples that we have heard about, of suitcases going round Heathrow with blood dripping from them, the system has caught up with the travellers responsible and prevented such illegal importation. What we need to do now is to provide more resources, and an annual report, to help to tackle the problem of people who import illegally as a commercial business, in the way that Customs and Excise tackle the illegal importation of alcohol and tobacco products. We need a proportionate response—that phrase was much used in Committee—and I am much more concerned about larger quantities of meat that might enter the food chain than about the naive traveller with his accidentally imported bit of ham sandwich.

James Paice: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the conclusions of the Department's scientists that the outbreak of swine fever in the late summer and early autumn of last year was caused by the illegal importation of a pig product, assumed to be a pork pie or a ham sandwich. The consequences for the pig industry in East Anglia were devastating and that is why we cannot ignore that relatively small problem.

Diana Organ: We are not sure how the swine fever outbreak started, although there has been much speculation. We must use better targeting—

Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Organ: May I answer the first intervention before I do so? We have to target resources, but my concern is that we need more systematic and rigorous controls at the point of entry so that we can catch people who import, illegally and for commercial purposes, meat that will enter the human food chain. We have already caught many of the other offenders.

Richard Bacon: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to a report published today by the Health and Safety Executive. It is called "Reducing risks, protecting people". On page 67, under the heading
	"Comparison of risks against costs",
	it says:
	"In comparing costs against risks the Health and Safety Executive, when regulating, will be governed by the principle that there should be a transparent bias on the side of health and safety . . . There is a need to err on the side of safety in the computation of health and safety costs".
	For duty holders,
	"the test of 'gross disproportion'"
	should be seen in that light.
	Is not that evidence that the Government recognise that the potential costs of getting it wrong are so huge that it is worth a bit of investment—a favourite word of the Government—"up-front" to ensure that we get it right?

Diana Organ: There will always be some level of risk, especially on food issues. We seek to improve the biosecurity of the nation through the Bill, but we cannot have a 100 per cent. risk-free situation and say that nothing will ever break through the barrier that we are trying to erect. There is always a cost to set against every benefit. I am arguing for greater and more targeted resources and an annual report, because it is obvious that the present measures have failed us in the past.

Simon Thomas: The debate is slightly off target, because it is not important that we decide today what constitutes the greatest risk to animal health, be it a ham sandwich or an illegal cargo of Brazilian meat entering via the Republic of Ireland. What we need to decide is whether it is right and proper that the Government should tell us annually what steps they have taken to crack down on such offences. It is on that basis that we could hold the Government to account. We need that open accountability and auditing of the Government's work. The hon. Lady is answering the points well, but the debate is not concentrating on the crucial issue.

Diana Organ: I give great thanks to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. This is a sub-debate which does not go to the heart of the matter. The real point is that we want an annual report and more targeted resources. More information should be given to the travelling public, but we want the Bill to improve control measures at ports and airports and to strengthen biosecurity.

Colin Breed: Most hon. Members have received correspondence from dismayed farmers and people in the agriculture industry, expressing much the same sentiments as have been heard in the past hour. Many people involved in this exercise recognise that we need stronger and better regulation of food imports. As has been pointed out, the new clauses offer a mechanism for keeping matters under constant and vigilant review.
	People who work at our ports and airports would welcome having the matter raised regularly, as that would ensure that they were given the support needed to do their jobs effectively. Financial support is important, but so, for instance, are proper notices and leaflets. They would bring the matter to people's attention before they disembark in this country, and they represent a cheap way to remind people to take care.

Tony Cunningham: That is an important point. Some options are simple and cheap. For example, people checking in luggage at airports are asked whether they packed the bag themselves. Similarly, a few simple questions when people return to the country would remind them of the portion of pork pie or sandwich that they have in their possession. They do not bring such material in deliberately, but an appropriate question and the correct signage could be helpful.

Colin Breed: I agree. That would command the support of most people. However, some ports have better facilities than others. Early on in the foot and mouth crisis, I spent five or six weeks submitting requests to visit ports to look at their facilities. Eventually, it was agreed that I could visit Felixstowe.
	Felixstowe has impressive facilities for checking imports. Refrigeration units allow refrigerated containers to be checked, and a computerised system checks containers' provenance. In addition, the port has many expert staff, who do admirable work. Trading standards officers, the port health authority and the Customs and Excise work together as they check containers. That was impressive.
	I wonder, however, whether I was allowed to see Felixstowe because it would make me think that other ports' facilities were equally impressive. I suspect that they are not. People who deliberately try to introduce illegal meats are unlikely to bring them through the port at which there is the greatest likelihood that they will be caught. They are more likely to go for the weakest link in the chain of security around the country.
	We need to ensure that all airports and seaports have the proper facilities. Improving security arrangements at one port will only put more pressure on other ports and other forms of entry. I hope that the Government will recognise that part of the war against foot and mouth disease and other diseases involves improving ports' facilities. Officials' ability to do their work properly needs to be reviewed regularly.
	I was interested to read recently that European legislation in the new year will try to make the whole of Europe a fortress against third-country imports. A clear problem at Felixstowe involved imports from European countries which had originally been part of third-country imports into those countries. Officials' ability to check those imports was insignificant.
	It is a weakness in the system that imports from Thailand, Brazil, South America and Asia, for instance, can go to other European countries before being passed on to Britain. Such imports are subject to very little checking. I do not know what input Britain has had into the discussions of the forthcoming European legislation, but it is a major problem. Being an island, Britain has more ability to protect itself than other countries. I hope that we have contributed to discussion of the introduction of that legislation and made sure that we do not suffer from third-country imports that pass through another European country.
	The new clauses have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The proposals that they contain do not go much beyond what the Government were doing anyway. If there had been regular reviews or reports after the 1967 outbreak, some of the measures that we now believe to be necessary might have been introduced earlier. If those matters had been raised in a debate or report, we might have been alerted beforehand to some of the problems at the heart of this year's foot and mouth crisis.
	If things like the movement of animals—and especially of sheep—the growth of market traders, and the conditions in markets had featured in previous annual reports, we might not have had to face some of the problems encountered this year.
	The new clauses are based on common sense. If the Government are undertaking regular reports and reviews, there is no reason why—given their new-found transparency and openness about the actions that they are taking—they should not publish their findings and present them to Parliament. A proper annual review could take into account the new information arising from the inquiries that are in hand. It would allow the House to adapt to new circumstances and to ensure that new forms of security and defence were established. In that way, we could avoid subjecting the country to more disease than might reasonably be expected.
	I hope that even if he cannot support the new clauses, the Minister will support the desire expressed in them for openness and transparency so that a regular review is not just seen by a Department but laid before Parliament. That would ensure that we are vigilant in future, bearing in mind the enormous cost of foot and mouth for the country and the way in which it has ravaged our rural economy. Producing an annual review and report would be an inexpensive and reasonable way of doing that, and I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

David Drew: I congratulate the official Opposition on catching us up with regard to new clause 1. If they had got a move on in Committee, we might have had this debate then. I remember that the new clause was first down in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). However, as an altruistic soul, I do not claim ownership. I am looking forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. There is a unanimity of purpose in dealing with imports and, more particularly, improving co-ordination of the way in which we deal with them.
	In a sense, I am pleased that the official Opposition are not aiming to strengthen existing legislation on controlling imports. I have talked to the National Farmers Union, and have been led to believe that the Animal Health Act 1981 is sufficiently strong to control imports of illegal and unacceptable foodstuffs into the country. It is a question of co-ordinating and monitoring the situation and, as new clause 4 specifies, publishing a report of what is going on.
	I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us what is happening. There is a need to tighten things up, although we might be 20 years or more too late, as the Northumberland report highlighted. It is amazing what people can find in the Northumberland report as worthy of prioritisation. When I look through it, I do not always find some of the things that it is said to have mentioned. It is a good report, but it is about a different outbreak at a different time. We can learn from it but we cannot treat it as tablets of stone and implement every recommendation as if things have not moved on, because they have.
	So many organisations are involved in controlling imports that we must consider the issue carefully. They include Customs and Excise, the Home Office, the Food Standards Agency and local authorities. Two-tier systems—or three-tier, like mine—have district environmental health officers and county council trading standards officers and, last but not least, the port health authorities.

Angela Browning: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman praying in aid the excellent work of the trading standards officers in Gloucestershire county council. However, I recall that only yesterday, in Westminster Hall, he was advocating abolishing Gloucestershire county council.

David Drew: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that that is why I am calling for unitary authorities. In that way, we might have some real co-ordination, with different officers working in the same way. I am in no way being derogatory about the excellent work they do, but rationalising the services makes sense. These proposals are about improving co-ordination and making sure that people work together.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) hit the nail on the head, which he does more often than not. We are not simply talking about the main ports of entry. Not a lot of people know this, but I have in my constituency a port called Sharpness. On a busy week, about 10 ships come in to it. I am loth to remind my hon. Friend the Minister, but we had an immediate rapport about this when I came to this House. My hon. Friend told me that he had managed to negotiate an improvement in the herring quota for my constituency. The only problem was that although I have a port in my constituency, I do not have a herring fleet, and I put him right later on. It appeared in Punch, and is a legitimate source of interest between us.
	Sharpness is the epitome of the problem. It is a very small port, although its tonnage is growing. The idea is to have permanent people on the port side looking at every cargo that comes in. We have foodstuffs coming in, but nothing mainstream. New clause 4 puts forward ideas for improving that. Given that unity of purpose, my hon. Friend the Minister would be churlish, to put it mildly, if he did not allow us to consider ways in which to improve the situation. We can talk about that, in this place or the other place, and about how to use the existing legislation more effectively.
	There is an issue here concerning our relationship with the European Union. I had the opportunity to speak on this matter about a month ago when we considered the potential of the European food standards agency. In many respects, our Food Standards Agency, introduced by a Labour Government, has set the trend for other countries within Europe and further afield. They regularly draw on the evidence of the Food Standards Agency to see what good work is being done. We cannot introduce the sort of measures that we want in isolation from Europe. Whatever our view of Europe, we must accept that much of our trade is there and that much of it will come through Europe, whether it is legal or—dare I say—illegal. We must work with other EU countries, and that should be done through the Food Standards Agency. Whether we are talking about our Food Standards Agency being at the forefront or working in tandem with the European agency, I do not mind.
	If the Food Standards Agency is to be the lead agency, as looks highly likely, I accept that the Food Standards Agency should report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well as the Department of Health. That is one of the only recommendations that I made when looking at DEFRA's terms of reference. We can have that argument another time. How do we empower the Food Standards Agency, what do we expect it to do, how do we monitor its performance and how do we expect the other Government agencies and Departments to relate to it?
	Finally, when we talk about farmers improving their biosecurity, there is a trade-off with the need to know that there is a so-called level playing field. It will be more level if farmers know that there is a regime that not only deals with imports but tells people what it does. Because there are various agencies trying hard to do what they can, it is never completely clear who is taking the lead and what they are doing.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to allay a lot of fears. The debate has been important; I am glad that it has come at the start of the Report stage rather than getting squeezed off the end, as happened before. This is an important point, and we will have done a great deal of good if we make sure that things are tightened up and we all know where we are going.

Michael Jack: Perhaps I might tempt the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to save the House further debate on this subject. I should be delighted if he would intervene to tell me whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposal. New clauses 1 and 4 focus centrally on the production of a report, and some cogent arguments have already been put by hon. Members in support of that idea. Would the Minister like to stop me going on for too long by telling me whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposal?

Elliot Morley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who—as ever—goes straight to the point. Obviously hon. Members want me to respond, but I cannot do so in an intervention. I can only say that I think that the case is being made well and I am very sympathetic in principle to the idea of the report as well as to the general principle of being open and transparent. However, I am not sure whether the Bill is the right vehicle for that, as the issue is one of imports—not animal health. However, I am prepared to take the proposals seriously and to consider whether we can do something along those lines.

Michael Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. When he appeared before the Select Committee and we probed him, as many have done, as to why the measure had been so hastily and speedily introduced, he reminded us—including those of us who have served in the ministerial area that he occupies with such distinction—that legislative opportunities do not come often. However, there are precedents that might give him comfort as regards his worry that the Bill is not the right legislative vehicle: the exercise rewriting in plain English the UK tax laws resulted from Parliament agreeing, in a Finance Bill, that an important report be produced. That may offer the Minister a degree of comfort. That is one reason for the request in both new clauses that a report on action to deal with illegal imports, in the first instance, be laid before the House.
	Westminster Hall offers us more opportunities to debate such reports, which would also enable the Select Committee to go through such matters. By the time the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will have resolved his internal struggle as to whether he will sign up to the proposal to produce such a report—whether enshrined in law, as I should prefer because that would guarantee that it was done, or undertaken outside the provisions of the Bill.
	As other new clauses and amendments rightly point out, it is also important to develop a strategic approach towards not only foot and mouth but a range of potentially lethal and infectious diseases—as suggested in schedule 2—that threaten us in the United Kingdom. The proposed report would assist in the development of a biosecurity strategy to which all parties could make a contribution.
	When the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke to his new clause, he talked about the Food Standards Agency. I do not think that is the right lead body: in essence, the issue relates to animal health and, as many hon. Members have already pointed out, it involves many governmental and non-governmental agencies. DEFRA would offer the best co-ordinating point for all those elements, so that each can make their contribution to the production of the report.
	The report could also be developed as an action document for a wider biosecurity network. I have studied the information issued by DEFRA in its briefing: "The Animal Health Bill—frequently asked questions". The strategy for dealing with importation covers little more than one A4 page. Most of it describes various forms of publicity. The most far-sighted statement is:
	"We are also looking at a wide range of other options to ensure the rules on imports are enforced effectively and efficiently. These include, for example, the possible use of sniffer dogs and x-ray machines."
	I am sure that the Minister will tell us that much more is really going on, but why not deal with the problem rigorously by producing an annual public report? The Minister might have been on his way back from Brussels and thus unable to listen to "Farming Today" when a spokesman was talking about changes in EU legislation. Those changes may in due course be relevant, but we cannot wait until then. The spokesman referred to the areas where there are risk factors for foot and mouth alone: in Russia, the middle east, north Africa, Asia and south America. We could add to those factors the variants for the possible importation of suspect material: illegal immigrants, tourists, legitimate immigrants—one could go on, but this is neither the time nor the place for a debate on all those factors. Given the complexities, however, there is a real need for the Minister to sign up to the production of a report that could form part of a proper biosecurity strategy to deal with those problems.
	We should not let people forget the foot and mouth outbreak. Although the previous one was in 1967, the cases of swine fever and other diseases show that it may not be long before there is another outbreak. It is better that we are rigorously prepared; the report would make a contribution to that.

Angela Browning: The Minister will be aware that, in Committee and during today's debate, I have drawn his attention to the first conclusion of Professor Mercer's inquiry into foot and mouth in Devon. It is an indictment of the Government that, in drawing up primary legislation, on Second Reading and in Committee, they flatly refused to address the urgent need to ensure that action is taken to deal with imports. We must do that if any lesson is to be learned from the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
	In his evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister acknowledged:
	"The legal imports were never responsible for this outbreak. We do not really know what has been responsible . . . it was probably some form of illegal import."
	If that is his view, it beggars belief that—on the precautionary principle—the Government have included no provisions that address that problem. What is worse, when they were presented with reasonable amendments in Committee, they refused to accept them and voted against them. New clause 1 offers us the last sliver of a chance to extract from the Government a tangible piece of documentary evidence as to how they are dealing with a clearly perceived problem: the most likely cause—in the absence of other evidence—of the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
	I support the new clause. However, umpteen glossy Government reports pass through the House, so I hope that, if the Minister is amenable to the suggestions and produces an annual report, he will not see it as a soft option. The report will need to give tangible and quantifiable evidence and to demonstrate year-on-year progress. It must be devoid of any of the usual spin doctor waffle—the matter is important and it deserves better treatment than that. The report will need to be statistically—

Elliot Morley: Is this a persuasive case?

Angela Browning: I have a certain sneaking affection for the hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"]—and I have tried every course. On Second Reading, I went out of my way to say nice things about him. Throughout Committee, I read him interesting extracts from publications—but now there is no more Mrs. Nice Guy. I shall lay it on the line: as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) correctly pointed out, we are talking about animal disease. Clearly, there is a read-across from our concerns about the danger that imports present and the spread of animal diseases in this country to harmful human diseases and human health risks.
	As time goes by, there may well be communality between the procedures that are put in place to address both issues, but the Bill deals specifically with animal disease, and it is on that basis that the Minister should recognise that—although he accepted not a signal amendment in Committee from any party or, indeed, his own Back Benchers—now is his chance. Christmas is coming, and he should remember the lowing animals around the manger. Now is the time for the Minister to show the softer side of his nature and support new clause 1.

Simon Thomas: At the start of what I hope will be a short contribution, may I clear up any confusion that may have been caused in Leicestershire because of my earlier remarks? Of course, I wanted to refer to legal meat imports. It is important to realise that legal and illegal meat imports present a risk to animal health. As has been rightly said, there is a public health issue as well. Certainly, all of us who are here to serve, to protect and to provide services to the public should be concerned when we hear of the cases involving Ebola-carrying monkeys.
	I simply want to take this opportunity to encourage the Minister to accept either new clause 1 or new clause 4, because there is a great deal to be said for them. A bit of politicking has gone on, which is quite natural, and the Government have been accused of being rather lackadaisical in their attitude to illegal meat imports. However, when I met representatives of the county committee of the Farmers Union of Wales in my constituency last Friday, they told me that they were being asked to do an awful lot to improve and maintain biosecurity. They pointed out that they had to face the financial penalties for not reaching the Government's standards, and they simply said, "Ask the Government what they are doing for us." They wanted to know what the Government are doing to protect their industry and farming communities from illegal meat imports.
	Legal and illegal meat imports involve an economic cost that affects how we try to get our local farmers to sell their produce successfully. The point that the farmers wanted me to get across—I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so—is that they want the Government to show clearly how they are checking meat imports, ensuring that higher public standards are meeting consumers' concerns and weeding out illegal meat imports.
	The FUW would like an annual report to be published to show what percentage of meat imports are checked and at which locations those checks take place. I accept that those checks take place at large ports such as Felixstowe, but we also heard about the smaller ports such as that in the Stroud constituency, as well as Fishguard and Swansea, where such checks are not carried out regularly and where curious meat imports end up. South American beef is sent to the Republic of Ireland, somehow acquires EU status and is then imported into this country. We would like an annual report to explain how such things occur.
	If the Minister does not accept either new clause, I hope that he will at least undertake to produce a report. If he does that, I would still commend new clause 4 to him. Despite the virtues of new clause 1, by which Conservative Members try to address similar aims, the advantage of new clause 4 to the Minister is that its terms are much more detailed and thorough. It states which agencies should be covered by an annual report and casts its net a little wider than just the narrow confines of the Bill. We seek a wider-ranging report on animal health issues that might be addressed not only by the Bill, but by the actions of other Government agencies and Departments—for example, the Food Standards Agency under the Department of Health.
	There are great advantages in both new clauses, but new clause 4 has the added advantage that the National Assembly for Wales would receive a copy of the report. Two serious animal diseases—brucellosis and tuberculosis—are dealt with as animal health matters by the National Assembly, not by the Minister here. Plaid Cymru would like to amend the Bill and suggested some changes on Second Reading, although not in Committee because we did not get to that point. Under amendment No. 19—if we ever get there—we shall try to give the National Assembly greater powers to deal with animal health issues.
	Indeed, the National Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has said that it wants such powers, but it wants to have them through secondary legislation, which is a slightly different way from the one I would advocate. All that has the virtue that the National Assembly should receive a copy of such an annual report and debate it, and it should be able to suggest any improvements to primary legislation that are needed to crack down on illegal meat imports.
	I hope that the Minister will either undertake to produce such a report, or, even better, accept one of the new clauses. However, whatever happens, I hope that he will accept that the farming community and the public need to see an annual report from the Government in which they set out the steps that they are taking to ensure that there is no further outbreak of foot and mouth, or any other serious animal health problem, in this country. I hope that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that no such outbreak occurs and that they will be openly accountable.

James Paice: The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred in his opening remarks to a point that I want to make. I endorse what he said about the pressure that is properly put on farmers to improve their biosecurity. The vast majority of farmers realise that more can be done, but probably those who realise what can be done have already done it—that is the nature of such things. However, the need for biosecurity is recognised and accepted by the industry.
	Alongside that, the Government have been making noises during the past few months, if not years, about farmers taking increased responsibility—using insurance mechanisms or whatever—for the consequences of animal disease. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to start with that issue because it behoves the Government to do their bit to minimise the risks against which farmers must take their own biosecurity measures.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and other hon. Members have said, the advantage of an annual report is that it would give the House and others the opportunity to find out what was happening. In itself, it would solve nothing. In theory, an annual report could say that nothing had been done and that could go on year after year, but we all know that the reality is that such exposure of the actions taken, or not taken, would result in improvement.
	It is worth making the point that when the House passed the Food Standards Act 1999, about which I spoke on behalf of the Opposition, we tried very hard to give the FSA the responsibility for monitoring the standards of imported food. I recognise that that issue relates to human health, rather than animal health, but, as several hon. Members have rightly said, there is a tremendous amount of conjunction between those two issues. Of course, some diseases affect humans and other animals.
	I make the aside, but it is an important one, that if we are facing climate change and a gradual warming of this part of the world—most people now accept that that is happening—we shall be increasingly at risk of diseases that have not yet reached these shores. We are dealing not only with known problems, but with those that might arise in future. It is a great shame that the Government strongly resisted making the FSA responsible for import controls, for example.
	I also want to refer briefly to the world trade in food. I readily accept that we are debating whether an annual report should be published on how we address the animal issues that relate to imported foods, but we need to return to the point about new legislation that the Minister made in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. Of course, the Minister is right to say that, strictly speaking, food can be moved freely in the European Union, but I remind him that there is a treaty article—it was 36, but it now has another number—that allows any Government to impose import controls for reasons of human or animal health or welfare. The power can therefore be used if necessary. The power's use is considered by the European Court of Justice, and France used it over BSE. As a result of decisions made at the European Council, the court decided that its use in that case went over the top.
	In an intervention, I referred to food imports from China and the increasing amount of meat imports, including poultrymeat, that come from Brazil and Thailand. We therefore need to question whether the controls exercised by the EU on our behalf are sufficient. I hope that an annual report would be able to refer to the implementation of the European controls.
	It has been argued that the developing world would see the introduction of certain standards as a trade barrier. Like most Conservative Members, I am in favour of free trade as long as it is fair trade. The non-governmental organisations that assist the developing world frequently use the term "fair trade", and I have no qualms about the concept. However, if standards are imposed in this country or in Europe, we cannot have fair trade if products that do not meet those standards are allowed into the marketplace. The Government or the Commission must either prevent such imports or provide public support to domestic producers to compensate them for the extra costs that would be imposed on them.
	A couple of months ago, the Minister created agricultural headlines when he expressed his belief that subsidies were doomed and would go. I do not want to enter that debate now, but his view hardly suggests that the Government are willing to set out the compensatory approach that I have just described. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, we must recognise the importance of the famous level playing field for imports.
	The two main apostles of the free market are the United States and Australia. Although we can argue about whether they are as white as white as they sometimes pretend, the fact is that their import controls on food products are extreme while the controls in this country are a joke. During the summer recess, I went to Australia with colleagues from both sides of the House and, when we arrived, our bags were searched and we had to take our shoes off.

Elliot Morley: That was because of foot and mouth.

James Paice: Of course it was because of foot and mouth. However, we were struck by how seriously Australia took the issue. Accidentally or not, there was no way in which one was able to bring in any food product however small. Until and unless we adopt such policies in this country and throughout Europe, we shall continue to face the dangers associated with the import of foodstuffs.
	When I referred to the outbreak of swine fever in East Anglia, the Minister said that his scientists had concluded that it was probably—the case cannot be absolutely proven—caused by an illegal import or an import of pigmeat in some form or other, probably a ham sandwich, from a country where the far-eastern strain of classical swine fever is endemic. As we do not allow pigmeat imports from any of those countries, the import of this product would have been illegal.
	If the scientists are correct—I have no reason to doubt their findings—the word "probably" becomes terribly important. The precautionary principle applies and I am sure that the Minister, who is a reasonable man, will agree that "probably" is sufficient to justify precautionary measures.
	Despite that case, I have seen no evidence that suggests that controls have been improved at our sea ports or airports. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong and will point to the range of measures that the Government have enforced since the veterinary report into swine fewer was produced to show that significant improvements have been made. I suspect that he will not be able to do that, and that reinforces the case for the publication of an annual report.
	The Minister was impressive in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. The hon. Gentleman showed that he was open minded and, even if he cannot make a commitment in the next few minutes, I stress to him that we can make further progress on this matter in another place. I hope that he will undertake that this crucial issue will be considered there. No one has spoken in this debate against the proposal in the new clause, and I hope that he will appreciate that.

Bill Wiggin: I have opposed the Bill since its introduction and the only redeeming feature in it would be the inclusion of new clause 1. The Bill is draconian and remains unamended. It is extremely worrying in every way.
	When the Minister was in Brussels yesterday, he will have heard about the new vaccination testing that will allow the tests to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals. That means that vaccination will become a more effective tool in combating foot and mouth. Although there is no demand for a general prophylactic vaccination of all livestock, it could at least be used as a ring-fenced measure. However, for that to be viable, the tests would have to be fully validated and international rules for the trade in meat from treated animals would have to be changed. Perhaps that is what we should be debating today.
	Mr. Byrne, the European Commissioner responsible for foot and mouth and food safety, made the point that he wanted all new proposals to focus on improvements in livestock management. He warned:
	"This will require improved identification and traceability"
	and would lead to more restrictions on animal movements. More resources could also be devoted to stopping illegal imports of contaminated meat.
	If we adopted new clause 1 and could move away from the concept of slaughter, a huge part of the Bill would become obsolete. If we could focus on preventing the import of disease and not on the 5 million animals that were slaughtered, we would be doing something positive and not concentrating on passing a draconian Bill.
	I have examined other parts of the Bill and hoped that science would throw light on them. It did, because one of my constituents was the first to be genotype-tested for scrapie. [Hon. Members: "Not the sheep?"] Mrs. Sue Farquhar will be grateful to hon. Members for pointing out that it was her flock of Shropshire sheep that were genotype-tested. She is from Hansnett farm in Canon Frome and, in an article in Farmers Weekly a few weeks ago, she and her husband advocated that all sheep owners should have their flocks scrapie tested. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that that was a positive suggestion.
	However, Mrs. Farquhar rang me yesterday in some distress. The results that she had been promised would take two weeks to arrive came back four weeks later and 80 per cent. of them were wrong.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are wandering a little away from the point.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it were accepted, new clause 1 would be the only reason to support the Bill. If it is not accepted, we shall need to consider all the different reasons why the scrapie tests have been invalidated. That is why I may have strayed briefly from the point. However, I feel that if I cannot mention the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will have let down my constituent, but worse than that, I will have let down all livestock owners in the UK—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be so, and I would hate it if the hon. Gentleman were to let down his constituent, but he really must confine his remarks to the new clause.

Bill Wiggin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall return to the new clause and, in particular, to the point that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that they do not allow the importation of any new disease. Whether or not they decide to eradicate existing diseases is by the by, as you rightly pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I shall close, then, with the thought that the Bill's drafting and its draconian elements, and the fact that I have been unable to tell the Minister about scrapie, mean that it is essential that we support new clause 1, and I hope that Labour Members will do so.

Richard Bacon: I shall start where my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) left off—with the difference between the Government's talk and their action. Just this morning, I was speaking to a leading figure in the pig industry, who said:
	"The Government has done nothing that would give anyone any confidence that a new outbreak isn't incubating right now."
	[Interruption.] I think that I heard the Minister say that it is not true. If it is not true, the Government are failing to communicate what they are doing, because that is the pig industry's impression. I have been in the House only a short time, and sitting on the Public Accounts Committee week after week, hearing tales of the Government getting things wrong, I have been particularly struck by the fact that one of the most important functions of Government is to identify and manage risks. The risk that we face from illegal animal imports, which new clause 1 does something to address, is extremely serious, and the Government failed even to mention it when introducing the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said.
	This country has been exposed to the risk of many diseases from imported products over the years. We have had foot and mouth from Argentina, swine fever from Denmark and the Netherlands, enzootic bovine leukosis from Canada and maedi visna from Iceland, and I could go on. Indeed, my constituency was heavily affected by classical swine fever. Irrespective of whether new primary legislation is needed, what the Government are doing to co-ordinate the various agencies and to ensure that their powers are being properly used is exceptionally important.
	As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out, many agencies are involved. Customs and Excise is responsible for controls on the international movement of all goods. Local authorities are responsible for inland checks on illegal food products, including those that have been illegally imported. Port health authorities are responsible for border checks on imported foods. The Meat Hygiene Service is responsible for enforcing hygiene controls on meat imported into licensed UK cutting plants. Again, I could go on. There is a perception, which is borne out by reality, that there is no, or at best insufficient, cohesion between those bodies.
	The Government recognise that. I am told that an interdepartmental taskforce is reviewing the co-ordination of responsibilities. On Second Reading, the Minister referred to that, saying that he did not think that there was a need for primary legislation, but that
	"DEFRA has been leading interdepartmental discussions"—[Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 666.]
	with various agencies. That was a month ago, and I am not sure how much action has taken place since then. People want action and change, not simply talk.
	The National Farmers Union acknowledges that, theoretically, the necessary legislative powers already exist. It goes on to say:
	"However, we believe that there is an urgent need for a far more comprehensive review of the overall framework and resourcing of the UK's system of import controls to ensure their effective implementation.
	Such a review should include a fundamental examination of the activity and responsibilities of central government, its agencies and local government in order to ensure coordinated activity and an effective import control regime".
	It cannot be the case that we now have an effective import control regime, or we would not be spending so much time talking about the issue today. The regime cannot be effective when so many industry bodies are flagging up the fact that they think it is not.
	The National Pig Association, which is of great interest to me because of the pig farming that is undertaken in my constituency, said:
	"It is likely that both outbreaks"—
	foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever—
	"started as a result of illegal imports of meat. There is an urgent need for the Government to act to reduce the risk of further outbreaks of imported diseases."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the Devon foot and mouth inquiry, which is, perhaps, one of the most important pieces of evidence that has come to light so far. It is the first independent, or at least quasi-independent, review of the crisis. Its conclusion is so important that I should like to make sure that it is all entered on to the record. In paragraph 1.1 of its preliminary findings, the inquiry says:
	"While it is certain that the disease entered this county via sheep bought by a Devon dealer from Longtown market in Cumbria, how it entered Britain is still a matter of conjecture. What is clear is that food is different from other internationally traded commodities and must be treated as such. It is fundamental to our existence, perishable and climate sensitive. No country or region can hope to meet consumer demand entirely from within its own boundaries. All of which means that while food traded internationally and within national borders is inevitable, it requires sensitive handling and rigorous bio-security. It was suggested to the inquiry that import controls of meat and other livestock products at the points of entry are inadequate and below the standard in countries free from Foot and Mouth."
	That is why the inquiry goes on, in its first finding, in paragraph 1.2, to conclude:
	"We therefore find that methods of import control must be tightened to the highest international standards and if necessary be the subject of new legislation. It is important that new powers are implemented promptly at ports and airports with the increase in staffing that that implies."
	I referred earlier to the report of the Health and Safety Executive, "Reducing Risks, Protecting People". If we were to approach the risk management of imported diseases and related health and safety issues in the same way that manufacturers approach safety in their plants, we would have what are known as hazard analysis critical control points, or HACCPs. Imports are an obvious critical point of entry for disease into UK agriculture, but when introducing the Bill, the Government did not, despite the recommendations of the Devon inquiry, which my hon. Friend pointed out, even mention them.
	Earlier this week The Daily Telegraph reported that there has been a new outbreak of Ebola in west Africa. That is, of course, a matter for human as well as animal health. Ebola has a fatality rate of about 70 per cent. It is suspected, although no one knows for certain, that it is carried by bats and ground rodents. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), in the light of such reports it behoves the Government to examine seriously whether the resources devoted to controls at airports and ports of entry are adequate. Customs and Excise rakes in about £100 billion a year on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It beggars belief that if the risk of a disease entering the country were sufficiently high, it would not be worth spending a considerable proportion of that sum to increase the security and biosecurity of people in this country.
	New clause 1 is a modest step in the right direction in that it at least places an onus on the Government to report back to the House on their actions. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will consider what has been said in this debate. On Second Reading, virtually every Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Member who spoke referred to the need for greater controls on imports. It is time that the Government took the issue much more seriously, and they could do so by accepting new clause 1.

Elliot Morley: We have spent two hours on new clause 1, which, I accept, deals with an important issue. I am not at all complacent and recognise that preventing disease at the point of entry is a key issue, but it is not the only issue. There are three issues in disease control: preventing disease from getting here in the first place, which we have debated; controlling the spread of disease once it appears in the country; and, of course, eradicating the disease and the measures needed to do that. All those criteria are important.
	I have differences, not necessarily with Members who have spoken this afternoon, but with people who try to present the issue of import control as the only method of controlling disease in this country. Some of them would be happy to have import control barriers and stop meat coming in from other countries. It is a myth that everything that comes from abroad is substandard; that is not the case, and no one in the House would suggest that. However, some Members have suggested that our import controls are substandard in comparison with other countries. There is no evidence of that; our import controls, procedures and methods are as good as, if not better than, those of any other European country.
	Unlike a lot of Members, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) has been to see one of our border inspection posts, through which all third-country imports have to go. They are well run, efficient and well resourced; some are very modern indeed. That does not mean that we should not look at whether we should make them better and whether there is a case for strengthening border controls and inspections. The Department has been doing that; we have spent more money on publicity at points of entry so that people are aware of controls. We have had a cross-Department review as the issue is a multi-agency one, involving Customs and Excise, port health authorities and local authorities. The Food Standards Agency provides an overview, but it does not exercise regulatory control over the inspections. Our minds are certainly not closed to improvements and, if necessary, strengthened law and regulations. I have doubts about adding the new clauses to the Bill because the powers that we have at present can be changed by order. Parliamentary time is a precious resource; if regulations on import controls need to be changed, that can be done by order, so primary legislation is not necessarily required.

Ann Winterton: I am dismayed—[Interruption.] Well, I shall probably be even more dismayed later. The Minister is introducing draconian and sweeping powers to deal with the spread of disease and its eradication, yet the Government have not done anything of any consequence—and he knows that they have not—about the importation of disease into the United Kingdom. We can gather from what he has said that nothing done so far has been in the least bit effective. In an intervention, he gave a different view from the one that he is giving now. Will he revert to type and accept the new clause? He could have done something about the problem in the Bill and taken action, but that has not happened.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Lady is again confusing the facts. The Bill deals with animal health, but import regulations deal with a different subject although, of course, if necessary, they can be changed. However, I come back to the point that allegations are just allegations; the evidence is not there. That does not mean that illegal imports are not coming into the country—the fact that we have been seizing them demonstrates that they have been coming in. There have been seizures of illegal commercial imports; the bush meat seizures at Heathrow airport are an example of Customs and Excise applying a risk assessment at points of entry and taking efficient action. Some of the people involved in the organised illegal bush meat trade have been sent to jail. I may be wrong, but that has never happened before, and it shows how seriously the Government treat illegal imports and demonstrates that action has to be taken.

Richard Bacon: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that primary legislation was, in his view, almost certainly not necessary. However, the excellent new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friends, and new clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), are agnostic on the question of whether or not primary legislation is required; they merely require the Minister to report back to the House.

Elliot Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get to it, I shall answer his point later. I want to deal first with the myths and put things in perspective.
	We are not out of sync with other countries, especially European ones, in the measures that we have taken to protect our consumers as well as animal and public health. I saw an interesting television programme about American border inspections. The Americans take that seriously, and I do not wish to imply otherwise, but the programme showed a guy searching luggage. He found some imported meat, including dead tropical rats, but because he could not find dead tropical rats in his guidebook he said that they must be all right, and allowed them into the country. That does not strike me as wonderful enforcement at the point of entry.
	Let us put things in perspective. We need to look at enforcement. At the conference yesterday, I saw the presentation by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which hon. Members have mentioned. The person giving the presentation was also in the European Union foot and mouth disease group. The presentation showed the scale of the spread of foot and mouth and indicated that 2000-01 has been the worst year ever for international outbreaks, not just those in the UK. A survey of risk assessment by the group demonstrated that the UK was last in risk assessment, which proves that one should not be complacent about many of the issues.
	We shall have to look at those issues, but they are not the only ones. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) rightly said that the Devon inquiry was the first one. As she said, we know that the disease came to Devon via sheep movements in the country but, incredibly, the report did not mention biosecurity measures to stop the spread of disease.

Peter Ainsworth: Nobody participating in our debate or in the Bill's Committee stage has suggested that importation is the only thing that matters, although it is important, as the Minister will acknowledge. It would help to put things in perspective if he told us the total resource or financial commitment that the Government are making available towards preventing the importation of illegal food, and the number of people employed in that role.

Elliot Morley: That is a multi-agency responsibility that goes beyond government, so I do not have the figures immediately to hand, but I am happy to try to get them for the hon. Gentleman, as I believe in being open and transparent. As has been said, having a report is not a bad thing so that people can see what is being done. From the Government's point of view, it is a good idea to demonstrate what is being done by giving the number of prosecutions and seizures. I am not against that principle. In fact, my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who tabled new clause 4, made a good case; a case was also made for clause 1. My hon. Friends tabled a similar amendment in Committee, so they have been thinking ahead.
	To a certain extent, we already conduct a review. Under the Animal Health Act 1981, a report on expenditure incurred, prosecutions under the Act, and the incidence of disease in imported animals is produced every year. Of course, that report deals with imported animals so it is not quite the same as the report proposed in the new clauses. I recognise that, and I do not disagree with the very persuasive arguments advanced by my hon. Friends.
	The question is whether it is legally possible to include such a clause in a Bill that does not concentrate on imports. That does not mean that we do not take the new clause seriously; we do. The issue is the nature of the Bill. I will consult the Department's lawyers and other Departments, as it is a cross-Government matter. The principle of an annual report is perfectly reasonable and fair. If a measure along the lines of the new clause can be arranged, whether it is introduced in the Bill or elsewhere, I am willing to press the case.

Ann Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which warmed up a little towards the end, but having considered the matter and listened to the debate, in which virtually every speaker from both sides of the House supported the principle of an annual report, which the Minister himself accepted, I fear that I cannot accept his undertaking to introduce the measure in another form, for the simple reason that we know that there is tremendous pressure on legislative time.
	Unless I can have a cast-iron guarantee that the measure will be introduced in the other place, I must press the motion to a Division. If the Minister can give me a cast-iron guarantee now that the measure will be introduced in the other House during the passage of the Bill, I shall accept what he says.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Lady knows that, because of the wording of both new clauses, I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee. I have given the House an undertaking that I am willing to consider ways in which we can advance the principle. That may well involve changes in the Bill, but I shall have to take advice on that, and I shall certainly do so.

Ann Winterton: Although the Minister accepts the principle of what we have been seeking, we want the measure itself. My original decision must therefore stand, and I must press the motion to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Officials: biosecurity

'In the 1981 Act, the following section is inserted after section 16—
	"16B Officials: biosecurity
	(1) The Ministers or any person acting on his behalf, shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that he does nothing which causes an animal to be infected with a disease specified in Schedule 2A.
	(2) Any person who fails to take such reasonable precautions is guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.".'.—[Mrs. Ann Winterton.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Ann Winterton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I hope that we shall be able to make progress, as there are many other new clauses and amendments that we would like to debate. The new clause, which deals with biosecurity in relation to officials, is extremely important and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it. The Bill as a whole introduces the concept of conditional payment in relation to compensation for slaughtered animals. In the first instance, it provides for 75 per cent. compensation, subject to the judgment that the biosecurity arrangements on the farm in question are suitable.
	I believe that the judgment that is made in the Bill is contrary to natural justice. The Government seem to have tried to smear farmers by saying that they were responsible for the spread of the disease and that they breached biosecurity to such an extent that a penalty must be introduced in respect of compensation or compulsory purchase of slaughtered animals. In Committee, the Minister conceded that that charge could be levelled at only a very few people in the farming community. One must, therefore, ask rhetorically why the Bill does not specify 100 per cent. compensation for the majority of farmers, and 75 per cent. compensation for those whose biosecurity arrangements are found not to be satisfactory by the Minister or officials sent by him.
	I recognise that compensation is the subject of several amendments that will be considered later, so I shall not mention the aspects with which they deal, but I must tell the Minister that the outbreak was under way for some considerable time before any biosecurity measures were introduced. Such measures were introduced very late in the day during the recent epidemic. Certainly, no specific advice was available at the outset to farmers or those in the rural community about how best they could stop the spread of disease. That may have been due to the lack of a workable contingency plan. The Minister said in Committee that such a plan was available—

Elliot Morley: Absolutely.

Ann Winterton: If that is the case, I would be grateful to see it. If such a plan was available, it is obvious that it was not in the least suitable for the sort of outbreak that occurred in this country. The disease obviously spread considerably faster than the Minister and his officials expected, perhaps because of delays in clamping down on animal movements in the first few days of the outbreak.
	While farmers are being accused by implication in the compensation measures in the Bill, many cases have been brought to my attention in which breaches of biosecurity occurred in respect of DEFRA officials and people who were subcontracted to undertake duties on behalf of the Department, whether they were the so-called dirty vets, slaughtermen or other officials. In case the Minister accuses me of promoting myths, let me say that I do not believe that these stories are myths. There were many biosecurity lapses among officials. 4 pm
	Farmers are keen to have good biosecurity. However, the Bill almost characterises them as initially having no biosecurity arrangements. We should treat farmers and officials equally. The Minister has agreed biosecurity arrangements, and I understand that Department officials who call on the farmers will go through the check list. If it is right for farmers to put those arrangements in place, those who work for the Department should also be liable for breaches of them. The new clause would redress the balance by ensuring that officials who act on the Minister's behalf are charged with the need to operate under strict biosecurity arrangements. If they are found to have failed and are convicted, an appropriate fine should be levied. New clause 5 provides for that.
	There is little more to say about the provision, which simply introduces equity as between the farming community and Department officials. I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.

Colin Breed: The term "biosecurity" became common this year. When it was first used, few people understood it precisely. I forget the actual date in February when the outbreak began; it was imprinted on my mind once—I am sure that it remains imprinted on the Minister's. However, it is instructive to consider what was happening then. In my part of the world, we ran out of disinfectant in days. The strategic stores of disinfectant to facilitate biosecurity were not available. Yet we have been told that robust contingency plans were in place. They did not extend to disinfectant for extensive use.
	Biosecurity became important, and the practices developed and the protocols were drawn up as we went along. Towards the end of the outbreak, biosecurity measures were considerably better than at the beginning. That betrays the lack of robustness in the contingency planning exercise. We had to make up the biosecurity as the epidemic took hold.
	I cannot go on without referring to the Department's refusal to support Cornwall county council in establishing biosecurity on the Tamar bridge. It may have been a small measure, but it would have been effective in making people realise what biosecurity was about. It might not have prevented much infection, but it would have raised awareness and made people more conscious of the need for biosecurity. Nevertheless, it did not happen. I expect that we now have a new definition of biosecurity and I hope that agriculture will continue to improve on it. We will need to ensure that biosecurity is maintained.
	I disagree violently with confusing penalties with fines. The idea of reducing compensation until farmers proved that they had taken the right biosecurity measures is wrong. The tiny minority who do not ensure that their biosecurity measures are appropriate should be fined. That should apply to anyone who is not making the required efforts to ensure that we get on top of any future disease outbreaks. After all, we fine those who walk dogs on paths and beaches from which they are banned. There is therefore no reason why farmers who have been convicted should not be subjected to fines. However, they should not be subjected to a summary reduction in compensation.
	Instead of
	"summary conviction to a fine",
	officials who deliberately—that is unlikely—or through lack of forethought are found guilty of breaching biosecurity should be properly fined. If the Government do not like that idea, they could ensure that the officials receive only 75 per cent. of their salary and make them apply for the other 25 per cent. once they prove that they have not contravened biosecurity measures.
	The point has been well made that everyone, including DEFRA and other Government officials, members of the public and farmers should ensure that they participate in the biosecurity plan. The measures should be properly enforced.

Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, in Committee, the Minister said:
	"I understand the arguments about whether compensation should be 100 per cent. or 75 per cent., but what we want is an incentive for good standards of biosecurity"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 November 2001; c. 134.]
	Does not that apply to officials? Should they not have an incentive for good biosecurity? Does not the new clause provide for that?

Colin Breed: It would achieve that. If officials come before a court because they have contravened the regulations that they are there to enforce, they should suffer a penalty. Farmers should suffer a similar fate; their compensation should not be reduced arbitrarily. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If farmers are expected to ensure that they fulfil biosecurity regulations on pain of reduction in compensation, officials should recognise that they do not have special immunity and should be subjected to the same sort of penalties. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.

Elliot Morley: I do not have much sympathy with the new clause—apart from the point, which I have repeatedly made, that biosecurity covers everyone who has contact with livestock farms. I accept that that applies to DEFRA staff. It also applies to people who do business with livestock farms, for example, by delivering feed or collecting milk, and to farmers. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) was right to repeat the point that I made in Committee: we are not obliged to pay the 100 per cent. market rate for diseased animals.
	We are considering infected premises and we are trying to give people an incentive to focus on biosecurity. We were surprised that the disease was not being spread by wind-borne infection, as we thought originally. It was spread in that way in 1967 and during the outbreak between then and now. The epidemiology showed that in 80 per cent. of cases the infection was locally spread through animal-to-animal contact, movement of people, machines and vehicles. That is serious.
	Again, I put it on record that the majority of farmers were considerate and careful and took biosecurity seriously. Early in the outbreak, we wrote to farmers about biosecurity. Later, we sent a video to every livestock farmer. We applied the blue-box control scheme towards the end of the outbreak, when we had the resources to do that. We could not have done that at its height because the resources did not exist. Those biosecurity measures had a real impact on bringing the epidemic under control.
	That is one of the issues that we are going to have to examine in relation to the lessons learned, but it appears that biosecurity as a disease-control measure was one of the key factors in bringing it under control. That is why we must take it seriously. It is certainly true that only a minority of farmers apply poor biosecurity, but every farmer can give examples of people they know in their area who do so. It does not take many people to spread the disease and to keep it going. That is why biosecurity is such a serious issue.

Colin Breed: It is well known that we are talking about only a tiny minority of people here. I call them passive delinquents, in that they often do not breach biosecurity regulations deliberately. Things just happen to them. Perhaps they do not take as much care as they should, but they do not do it deliberately, and I do not think that they should be so harshly dealt with.
	In the light of the lessons that we have learned, are there now strategic stocks of disinfectant carefully stored throughout the country? That is the very material that will be required should any terrible occurrence need to be acted on quickly. One of the major lessons that we should have learned is that sufficient stocks should be strategically placed throughout the country.

Elliot Morley: My understanding is that there were always sufficient stocks. The issue was where they were located. When there was high demand in certain parts of the country, the commercial stocks were exhausted quite quickly. There was always plenty of disinfectant; it was just a question of getting it to the right places and meeting that demand. Of course, there is no problem anywhere at the moment, but we need to give some thought to the matter for the future in the light of lessons learned.
	I cannot support the new clause, because it singles out DEFRA staff. I repeat that biosecurity requirements apply to everybody. We are not suggesting that we prosecute farmers who are in breach of biosecurity. We are saying that there will be an incentive in relation to compensation payments. Given that the majority of farmers will comply, and that we intend to go out to consultation about the procedures for the assessment, which I believe can be done very quickly, the vast majority of farmers are not going to be inconvenienced.
	I agree with the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) that many of the breaches of biosecurity were passive, in that people just did not think about what they were doing. The Bill is an incentive for them to think about that a bit more. So far as our staff are concerned, there were many myths about foot and mouth and some people were always trying to find a scapegoat. It is similar to the question of animal imports; people said that all the problems were to do with imports, that if we could sort them out there would not be a problem, and that no one else was involved.
	The theory was that all the problems were to do with DEFRA staff, and if it were not for them, there would not have been a problem, so people felt that they did not have to do anything about it. That was a minority view, of course, but one that is held in some quarters, and I reject it. We have made it clear to our staff that they have to follow good biosecurity. We do not need this new clause because our staff are given those instructions, and we expect them to abide by them.
	When complaints were received, every one was investigated. Most of them were found to be untrue, and in many cases there was no evidence. When there was evidence, we did not hesitate to take action against the people responsible, and in the case of contractors, that included dismissing them.

Peter Ainsworth: There appears to be a majority view outside, in the countryside and among members of the farming community, not so much that the Government are to blame for everything that went wrong but that the Government are putting them on trial. That is what is causing so much outrage and concern. That lies at the heart of our opposition to the Bill. The new clause is an attempt to shift the balance back a little in favour of the farming community, and to place some burdens of responsibility on DEFRA officials.

Elliot Morley: But it does not; it seeks to criminalise DEFRA officials uniquely, which is one reason why I reject it.
	The view that we are trying to blame farmers is a completely false perception, and it comes from some people who think that farmers played no role whatever in disease spread. We know that that is not so, although in many cases, they spread the disease inadvertently. The Government recognise that we have issues to examine. I, as a Minister, have never ducked responsibility or ducked criticism where it was due. We have to learn lessons from a range of issues over the course of the outbreak, but that applies to everybody, not just to DEFRA officials.

David Drew: Would the Minister care to comment on an answer to a written question that I tabled a week ago, which shows a significant increase in the number of people keeping one farm animal, or one to five farm animals? Contrary to the myth that we have seen the death of the small farmer, there has been a significant increase in their numbers. All those problems need to be factored into how we control disease.

Elliot Morley: That is absolutely right. Ironically, there seems to be a growth in small farms. Those figures include lifestyle farmers and part-time farmers. That raises a number of issues, including registration—do we know where all these animals are?—that we are going to have to address. I am sure that the independent inquiries are also going to have to address those issues.
	It is not fair to single out DEFRA staff in this way. Most complaints against them were completely groundless. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised the famous issue of the overalls in the deep freeze. We have checked that out, and the farmer concerned is now saying that the overalls have nothing to do with DEFRA. As a matter of fact, he has some rather interesting theories about them. We have asked him if he will let us have the overalls, so that we can test them, but he has refused, saying that they are not in his deep freeze but in someone else's. So we have not quite got to the bottom of that.
	I do not want to go into too much detail because the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is not here, so I shall write her a letter with all the details. There was another example of a vet who was said to be a "dirty vet". We checked that out and it was also untrue. A lot of claims are being made, but when we look into the details, they do not stand up to examination.
	I want to make it clear that if there are breaches by our own staff—I accept that our staff have responsibilities, too—we shall not hesitate to take action. That being the case, the new clause is completely unnecessary.

Ann Winterton: The Minister has given a full response to the points raised during this short debate on biosecurity and officials. We would agree that biosecurity is a very important issue for everyone, and our objective in tabling the new clause was to point out that it was not just the farming community that had a responsibility in these matters. The Minister said that the officials and subcontractors who work for the Department are—or will be—under strict instructions as to what biosecurity arrangements should be in place. That assurance goes some way to addressing our concerns on this matter, and I am grateful to the Minister for that.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Duty of Ministers to disposal of carcasses

'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 35.
	"35A Duty of Ministers to dispose of carcasses
	The Minister shall have a duty to dispose of the carcass of any animal slaughtered under the provisions of this Act within forty-eight hours of its slaughter.".'.—[Mr. Keith Simpson.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Keith Simpson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is not in his place at the moment, said that it might be more appropriate to refer to this Bill as the animal slaughter and disposal of carcases Bill, rather than the Animal Health Bill. That sounds, uncharacteristically, a rather crude and vulgar interpretation of the Bill. I have some sympathies with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that we often dress up in euphemisms of parliamentary language rather brutal and unsavoury facts.
	New clause 7 comes to the heart of the matter of public health and of beating foot and mouth. Following Second Reading, the Standing Committee, and through the deliberations of the Select Committee and proposals put forward by various outside parties including the farming community and non-governmental organisations, there is no doubt that a common theme has been that the Bill has been pushed through with insufficient lessons learned from the current and previous foot and mouth outbreaks. There is a sense—not only on the Opposition, but on the Government Benches—that the Government have failed to established a public independent inquiry. Only through that would we learn real lessons.
	Owing to the way in which the Bill is framed, we had to table amendments either to mitigate against the Minister acquiring unnecessary and, in some examples, inapplicable powers or to propose measures based on what happened on the ground during the foot and mouth outbreak. Given its nature, the Government's initial dithering, the failure of early measures and the subsequent spread of the disease, Ministers and officials were overwhelmed by events.
	I have some sympathy with Ministers and officials in that the speed and extent of the outbreak and spread of the disease meant that the old MAFF organisation was overwhelmed. This is neither the time nor the place to go into that, but I hope that we shall learn lessons from it. A serious consequence was the unedifying spectacle in many areas of large numbers of slaughtered animals lying in fields, farm yards, close to human habitation and by roads and tracks over many, many days.
	That was emotionally stressful for farmers and their families, and it was probably emotionally stressful for the vets and MAFF officials involved in the slaughter and the administration. Of course, it was also stressful for local people who had to move around what were, in effect, killing fields. Ultimately, it had a major impact on public opinion, and the Minister will be only too well aware of the great outrage and revulsion in Parliament.
	The Minister knows that the failure to keep up with carcase disposals became a logistical nightmare and, as foot and mouth spread, the carcase backlog became even greater. Apart from the emotional upset caused by widespread scenes of unburied dead animals, increasingly they posed a health risk. We know from those recent experiences, which were graphically illustrated by accounts from hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading and in Committee, that there was order, counter-order and disorder from MAFF and then DEFRA, overwhelmed by events.
	Undoubtedly, there was serious confusion over the disposal of carcases: whether to bury or burn and whether they were to be buried or burned near to or far from the culling site. Thousands of carcases were transported many miles, and they appeared to be moved at random before being buried or disposed of with little consideration of the environmental impact. All those examples posed a major health problem and I would argue that they effectively lost the public relations war for MAFF.
	The Minister made this clear in Committee:
	"Slaughter is the most effective way of stopping virus production, for the reasons that I gave. As soon as the animal is dead, it stops producing the virus."
	We still have no definitive proof that vaccination would have alleviated the spread or that it might be the answer for the future. From what the Minister has put on record, I understand that, in the event of another foot and mouth outbreak, slaughter will be the main method of preventing the disease from spreading.

Elliot Morley: I have not put that on record. I said that I would not want culling on the scale witnessed in this outbreak, and we must consider measures to prevent that. On vaccination, one outcome of the conference I attended yesterday is realistic proposals for greater use of vaccination, but that would take place alongside some culling. That would be reduced culling, but we still come back to this issue: if we are to cull, we must do so quickly and efficiently.

Keith Simpson: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which probably reinforces what I am about to say. There are few lawyers in the Chamber, but, as we are aware, it is always best to know the answer to any question we are about to ask. Given our experiences, it is incumbent on the Minister and DEFRA to ensure that carcases are disposed of within 48 hours of slaughter. As the hon. Gentleman said in Committee:
	"Ideally, we want to remove carcases as quickly as possible".
	However, he added that despite being desirable, the proposed 48-hour period was impractical.
	The Minister's objections were based on the scale of the epidemic and the logistical problems, including manpower, equipment and vehicular movement:
	"Such practical problems mean that an absolute commitment to a 48-hour target cannot be given. I do not dispute that that target is desirable."
	Having said that, however, he used a get-out clause:
	"I am not saying that some of those practical problems cannot be overcome. They will be dealt with in inquiries and in future contingency plans."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 November 2001; c. 62-3.]
	So, disposal of carcases within 48 hours is desirable on every criterion, including disease spread prevention, public health and public sentiment.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend mentions a series of matters, including inquiries. Would it not help support the Minister's point of view if all those matters, instead of being kept behind closed doors, were subject to an inquiry in public, so that we would all know precisely what happened? If only we all knew what happened, that would help the Minister enormously in putting his case.

Keith Simpson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That point has been made from these Benches and, indeed, from the Government Benches on numerous occasions. In a sense, we are groping in the dark as we consider the Bill, but my line of argument in support of the new clause uses the evidence as provided by the Minister himself.
	The problem is organisational and logistical, which is where MAFF-DEFRA so demonstrably failed during the recent outbreak. That is not only the conclusion of the Devon county council report, but what the public observed over several months, and farming communities in such areas had direct experience of it.
	The organisational and logistical failure of MAFF-DEFRA was highlighted when the Prime Minister ordered the use of Army personnel, under the command of a solid but inspirational brigadier, to get a grip on the slaughter and disposal of carcases in Cumbria. The Minister will forgive me for saying that my party had recommended that to Ministers over previous weeks, but it was dismissed as largely irrelevant.
	The Army provided leadership, organisation and planning, although it went in cold, and worked closely with local vets and MAFF officials, getting the problem under control, dealing with the carcase backlog and, as those events came to an end, disposing of slaughtered animals almost within the 48-hour time frame.
	My colleagues and I have tabled the new clause because we believe that, for reasons of science, health and public sentiment, it is right and proper that the Minister should have a duty to ensure that the carcase of any animal slaughtered under the provisions of the Bill be disposed of within 48 hours of slaughter. He agrees that that is desirable, but says it is impractical. We contend that the Prime Minister's decision to use the Army shows that, with leadership, organisational skills and the necessary resources, the desirable becomes the achievable.
	The Minister can square the circle only by lobbying the Treasury and the Prime Minister to point out that, as the Minister said today, it is likely that there will be further outbreaks of foot and mouth or some other animal disease in the near future, possibly on the scale of the recent foot and mouth outbreak. Unfortunately we did not learn the lessons of the swine fever outbreak, which affected my constituency. If we do not learn the lessons of this outbreak—if, again, we do not allocate the necessary resources, establish the necessary organisation and set targets—we will, I am afraid, witness a repeat performance.
	I urge the Minister to accept that our proposal is not just desirable, but achievable in practice.

John Gummer: I commend the new clause to the Minister for, dare I say, his own good.
	I know exactly what the conversation will have been in the Department when the Minister was preparing to defend his side. His officials will have said "This is a difficult point, Minister, and of course you will be sympathetic, but we should advise you that, all things being taken together and in the round, there may be trouble. It would be much better if you said no. Of course we will try our best. We will do all that we can, and perhaps we will even achieve what we want to achieve—but it would be much better if you gave us the necessary elbow room. You can trust us. It will be absolutely OK." I know that the Minister does not want to rest on that; I am sure that he wants to move a stage further.
	The point of placing a duty on the Minister is that it enables him to galvanise all at his command into achieving the desired end. It gives him a strength without which he clearly has serious difficulties, as we have seen during the past few years.

Colin Breed: Would it also give the Minister a lever in respect of the Treasury, and the costs that might be involved in achieving that aim?

John Gummer: I will come to the Treasury in a moment. I think it needs a paragraph or two to itself.

Michael Jack: Is not my right hon. Friend's argument entirely compatible with the Government's approach in introducing performance indicators into every area of their activity—health, education and many other areas—and measuring objectively what they hope will be done?

John Gummer: Absolutely—but my right hon. Friend will have noted that the Government are less keen on such indicators when they would indicate the performance of Ministers.
	I always want to help this Minister, as he knows. The proposed measure would help him to deal with the difficulty he has encountered with the Government machine in securing the full, fair public inquiry that I know he wants. The Minister has nothing to hide, and I am sure he has no intention of hiding anything; but it is extremely difficult for Conservative Members, or indeed members of any party in the House, to do anything if we do not have a report—not a report that would identify scapegoats, but a report simply detailing what has happened and what lessons should be learned. After all, we have had a number of reports of that kind, and in general they have been able to help future Ministers to conduct their affairs.
	If the Minister accepted the new clause, he would be able to say to his colleagues, "If we had been more open about the whole affair, I would have been able to convince the House of the need for a different time limit and a different procedure, because Members would have had all the information they needed at their fingertips. Indeed, if we had not completed the inquiry, I could have promised that they would have the information."
	I cannot speak for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I think that the new clause might have been withdrawn on the basis that further and better particulars might well lead them to take a different view; but they cannot do that in circumstances in which those further and better particulars will not emerge, because there is no mechanism whereby they should emerge. That means that we are bound to take only the evidence that we have ourselves, and seek to act on it. As I have said, giving way would grant the Minister greater power in his continuing argument with the rest of the Government, and a few notable colleagues, in favour of a comprehensive inquiry.
	Another reason for my view that accepting the new clause would help the Minister was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). I am thinking of the Treasury. The Treasury has a job to do: it is not a nice job or an easy job, but it must be done. The difficulty with the Treasury and DEFRA, as with the Treasury and MAFF, is that the area of choice is very limited.
	Quite properly, we are part of the European Union; quite properly, we have a common agricultural policy. The common agricultural policy could be greatly improved, and as part of the arrangements we will be able to improve it. The fact is, however, that the decisions—again, quite properly—are made jointly with us around a table. There is only a bit left for the Treasury to get its fingers on. Thank God there is only a bit left; otherwise, the farmers would have lost a lot more.
	I think that some of my friends who are not as happy about the CAP as I am should explain to the farmers whether they would get anything at all if it were all decided by the British. That is one of the facts of life. Happily, however, most of the decisions are made by people around a table. We are part of that, but many of the others are more concerned with the interests of farmers.
	Anyway, the bit left over is constantly under the eagle eye of the Treasury. The Treasury loves to look at that bit. That is why it has cut back on our flood defences. That is why the poor Minister had to admit to me the other day that less was being spent. He said that spending went up and down, but we were in the "down" phase at the moment, so things were rather difficult. Why did he have to explain that to me, at a time when my constituency—which contains 74 miles of coastline—is experiencing its worst-ever circumstances? Because the Treasury can only get its fingers on to the bit that is there—and those fingers creep out to grab whatever is around.
	I want to help the Minister in this regard. If the House of Commons decides that there is a performance target—a duty or a requirement—the Treasury can huff and puff as much as it likes, but it must provide the means. I am keen for the House to get its fingers around the throat of the Treasury, because if it does not we have no hope of controlling the Executive.

Peter Ainsworth: I suppose my right hon. Friend would think that it meant nothing to the Treasury, but may I draw him a little nearer to the new clause? Its purpose is to avoid the horrific scenes of carcases lying rotting in fields, the terrible scenes of carnage that caused enormous problems to our image around the world and had a devastating effect on our tourism industry, which cost us many millions of pounds. My right hon. Friend may like to consider that, even though perhaps it is optimistic to think that the Treasury is capable of taking such issues into consideration.

John Gummer: There is a problem with my hon. Friend's analysis. In looking at the consequences of such a new clause, the Treasury will think only of the narrow immediate expenditure. It will find it difficult to recognise that the new clause is intended to help the Treasury to defend the greater sum of resources available to it. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge cost that was paid because of the insufficient funding of the culling operation. The cost is one which we pay today. I happened to be in the United States when the televisions were filled with pictures of fires and the whole situation, but much worse were the photographs of the animals lying dead in piles. That did huge harm.
	I remind the House of an experience that I had. It will help the Minister to deal not with large carcases, but with the smaller carcases of hens. I remember being faced with the problem of a number of nuns who were keeping hens and who had a salmonella difficulty. Of course, hon. Members can see immediately the public relations disaster of a whole lot of nuns seeking to protect their hens from the arrival of those who were going to kill them. That did not seem to me to be good news. In the end, we went early, even before they had begun to see the crime. We destroyed the hens before either nuns or journalists were up. I am not suggesting that it would be possible for the Minister to deal with a great mound as quickly as that, but in public relations terms, the quicker, the better. If it has to be done, it has to be done quickly. The hon. Gentleman admits that.
	I hope that the Minister will understand that we press the new clause not out of antagonism to him or indeed to what was MAFF and is now, at least in part, DEFRA, but to give him the power that is necessary if he is to win battles within his Administration. Although I was a member of an Administration who by nature, support and backing were closer perhaps to rural areas than his, it was not always easy to win what I needed to win. Often I needed support. From time to time, the hon. Gentleman and his friends gave me that support by making it very difficult for people not to ante up the money. That is all we are doing today.
	I hope that the Minister will take seriously the proposition that, by setting him a target, we enable him to set a target for the rest of the Government, achieve the resources necessary and deliver the necessary result. I hope that he or any future Minister will never face such an outbreak again, but the position needs to be put right. Otherwise, the cost to our national exchequer will be enormous and the damage to our farming community huge.

Roger Williams: The Bill is ill advised and ill timed. A touch of optimism is returning to the farming community. I hope that foot and mouth has been defeated, but the Bill again drives a wedge between the industry and the Government. Any co-operation that we would like to engender and encourage between the two seems to be ill fated.
	MAFF set targets on slaughter and disposal. Those targets were not met because the disease completely overwhelmed the organisation that was in place. The Minister has told us that there was a national contingency plan but whatever it was, it was clearly not sufficient to deal with the disposal of the number of carcases that were on farms and in fields around farms.
	There were three ways of disposing of those carcases—burial, burning or rendering. Clearly, rendering was the preferred method, because it took place in well controlled environments. Sometimes, however, carcases had to be transported through clean areas that had not had the disease. Rendering capacity was limited, so burning and burying had to be contemplated.
	Lessons from the previous outbreak did not seem to have been learned, because the report on that outbreak said that on-farm burial was the favoured method of disposal. That had been accepted by the farming community.

Tony Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the problems with on-farm burial—I am a Cumbrian MP so I know what I am talking about—was that often the water table was too high and it was impossible to bury the animals on the farm where the disease had broken out?

Roger Williams: I accept that concern for the environment has increased since the 1967 outbreak, but instead of on-farm burial, it was decided to have mass burial and burning pits. The experience in my constituency was that concern for the environment was fairly minimal. One area on the Eppynt, an army range in my constituency, was designated and, until prompted by local farmers and villagers, no environmental assessment was even performed. However, one of the reasons given for not using on-farm burial was that an environmental assessment of each site would have to be carried out, which would be time-consuming and difficult to achieve given the resources available.
	If the mass burial and burning sites were included in the national contingency plan or the local contingency plan, that was not thought through very well. The new clause would encourage the Minister to ensure that any contingency plan, and any lessons learned from the inquiries that are taking place, would put more emphasis on deciding how to deal with the number of carcases that are generated.
	It was an upsetting time for the farming community. It was the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) who mentioned killing fields, but it was often killing yards. The animals were brought in close to the farms to be slaughtered and the carcases remained there for many days. Families, including children, were trapped on the farms and had to live with the carcases close by, which was an horrific experience for all.
	It is important that carcases are disposed of to prevent the spread of the disease. Although the animals produce no more virus when they are dead, the carcases can be torn apart by vermin, and the disease transported to other farms. The tourism industry also suffered because the animals were seen to be left unburied and when they were disposed of it was done in a way that deterred people from visiting areas that depend on tourism as well as agriculture for their livelihoods. I supported an amendment in Committee that was not framed as tightly and simply as the new clause, but the present proposal would help the Minister and it should be supported.

Bill Wiggin: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who made tremendous and well informed speeches. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) also made a passionate speech.
	When the decision to cull was taken, the Minister will have thought, "I must cull, otherwise our export market will be lost." That is a proper commercial decision. It was not done for humane reasons. There are not 5 million fewer farm animals because the Minister had humane reasons for his decision. We know, however, that the Minister will not slaughter on that scale ever again, thanks to the developments in vaccination.
	If the new clause has one purpose, it is to act as a brake on the Minister's decision-making process. Never again must carcases lie for nine days, as they did in Winforton in my constituency. Herefordshire relies heavily on its huge agricultural sector, and on tourism. Never again must we allow one market to be sacrificed so completely, and then watch with horror as another is taken down with it, leaving people in the countryside with virtually nothing.
	The new clause would encourage the Minister to vaccinate first. The Bill closes the stable door long after the horse has bolted, and any efforts that we can add to ensure that the Minister vaccinates first will improve life in the countryside.
	The new clause would mean that any future Minister facing a similar crisis would almost certainly be obliged to call in the Army at the earliest possible stage. That would naturally be part of any contingency plan, and would mean that some of the horrendous abuses of animal and human rights would be avoided. It would also prevent the horrendous mental damage suffered by people whose livestock were slaughtered.
	The new clause would also prevent the terrible smell from pyres, which did so much damage to the tourism and agriculture industries, and to connecting businesses across the country. I therefore urge the Minister to change his mind and support the new clause.

Michael Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) speaks with great authority from his experience of dealing at constituency level with the tragic consequences of foot and mouth disease. I rise merely to emphasise to the Minister the importance of this new clause. The part of the Bill that it seeks to amend gives legal comfort to the Minister that he has the power, at his discretion and decision, to slaughter in the first place.
	However, if the Minister is unable to agree to the provisions of the new clause, he must explain to the House why, given the lessons that have been learned and the findings of the two inquiries that are being held, he would not be able to dispose of carcases within the time scale that has been laid down. If he cannot explain that, it will be tantamount to an admission that, in another foot and mouth outbreak, he could not sustain the performance of disposal that was eventually achieved at the end of this outbreak as a result of the lessons that had been learned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), in his elegant speech, mentioned the Army's logistical input. Subsequent new clauses deal with the matter of a national strategy, which should incorporate the type of performance indicator and requirement contained in this new clause. In the interests of sending a powerful message to farmers that the Government have learned their lessons and that if—God forbid—there were to be another outbreak, it could be dealt with effectively, the Minister should agree to new clause 7. However, if he is fearful of accepting it, he must explain why he will not.

Elliot Morley: I am happy to explain why there are problems with the new clause. I am not against the principle behind it, as I said in Committee. It is desirable to have targets for disposal, as the new clause suggests, but the question is whether circumstances could arise in which those targets could be met, and what the implications of that might be.
	I shall explain that in a moment, but first I want to correct some of the statements that have been made. The first has to do with calling in the Army. I think that the independent inquiries will show that the Army was put on alert at the very beginning of the outbreak.
	I have been in my post for some time, so I was around at the beginning of the outbreak—and perhaps that is an indication of my own performance. I remember that the Conservatives were calling for the Army to dispose of and remove carcases. That was never really an issue—there was no shortage of civil contractors to do that. The Army played an important role in the logistics and organisation, in making sure that the right thing was in the right place at the right time. As the epidemic spread, it was important to have that support, which was brought in when it was needed.
	On the new clause, it is a case of not being able to win either way. During the epidemic, the Government were under pressure to kill animals as quickly as possible. That pressure came from farmers desperate to see the disease being stopped from spreading and those who did not have the disease but wanted to make sure that it was stopped from coming down the valley or moving down the county. Once an animal is killed, it stops producing the virus. The changes in the pH in the animal's body quickly neutralise the virus, and when the animals were killed they were also sprayed with disinfectant.
	There was also enormous pressure to take the bodies away as quickly as possible. That is an understandable and reasonable reaction from people facing the epidemic. However, there were logistical problems, given that this was the biggest outbreak of its type that the world had ever seen, such as obtaining leakproof lorries and disposing of the animals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is right that people keep mentioning the Northumberland report, which recommended burial. It did, but things have moved on since then. Issues relating to the water table in Devon, in particular, meant that on-farm burial was often not an option, as was also the case in Cumbria. In addition, the BSE outbreak in the cattle herd since the Northumberland report was published led to a restriction on burying cattle over 30 months and they had to be burned or, preferably, rendered. However, we did not have the rendering capacity to deal with the number of animals affected.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave me some helpful support. I always appreciate a bit of encouragement. The right hon. Gentleman knows all about the procedures, given his long experience in Government. I suspect that some of the people who advise me advised him. They are probably giving me the same advice, on occasion. However, the reason I cannot accept the new clause is not that I disagree with the principles behind it. It is desirable to set a target. There are valid arguments for setting such indicators, and we may be able to look at that in the future.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned vaccination as an alternative. I have always been keen on vaccination and on a range of other options, which is why I strongly support the Bill. It will give us as wide a range of options as we need in dealing with all circumstances. We should not forget that the Bill also deals with vaccination, sampling and blood testing—all the criteria that should be applied to any type of disease control.
	I am keen on getting these measures in place as quickly as possible. It can be argued that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but this was an outbreak like no other. We have to learn from that. I believe that we can learn lessons from the inquiries. I also genuinely believe that the structure of the inquiries is the right one. I am fairly relaxed about structure. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned a public inquiry; he had experience of the Phillips inquiry, which was a useful investigation which provided some useful information, but it took nearly three years.

Ann Winterton: You set it up.

Elliot Morley: I accept that. It cost between £30 million and £40 million—about £10 million was spent on lawyers' fees. I am not altogether keen on that approach. I am much keener on an open process that is in the public domain and deals with the issues. I believe that our approach is the right one.

Bill Wiggin: Does the Minister agree that, given the speed of policy changes—including EU policy—and the fact that none of the three inquiries has reported, he should not legislate until at least one of those inquiries has reported?

Elliot Morley: No, because time is of the essence. I repeatthat the Bill contains nothing that pre-empts any recommendation from the inquiries. Indeed, nothing in the Bill should be taken as the Government's definitive future policy for dealing with any disease outbreak.
	The hon. Member for Leominster is a strong advocate of vaccination, but some of the points that he made about new tests are not yet fully validated. The information is not yet available to us. I must correct him on one point: the culling programme was designed not to deal with trade issues, but to stop the spread of disease.

Colin Breed: Does the Minister agree that the Phillips report was lengthy and costly because it related to BSE—a disease that was new to us—but that we know all about foot and mouth? There is not much more that we need to know about the disease; we need to concentrate on how it was effectively controlled and eradicated. That would take far less time and would cost much less.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for inquiries that are short and to the point—exactly like those that have been set up. A full-blown judicial inquiry will go on for several years, so I much prefer the approach that we are taking. Nothing in the format of the inquiries is different from the Northumberland inquiry—there is no difference at all. People sometimes get hung up on definitions when they are talking about inquiries. I think we have chosen the right way: it will put all the information in the public domain, and will show us the lessons learned from the management of the epidemic, in the Anderson report, and the scientific questions—not only those relating to foot and mouth—that will be addressed by the Royal Society.

John Gummer: The Minister is trying to help the House, but the matter is not new, and the inquiry need not be as complicated as the Phillips inquiry, so surely it would be possible to set up a single, more public inquiry with a clear date line and the resources to produce a report within that period. It would have been quite possible to do that. The reason why the Government failed to set up such an inquiry continues to escape me. Everyone would have been much happier because its workings and results would have been open—as the proceedings of the Government's inquiries do not seem to be, at least to the public.

Elliot Morley: The right hon. Gentleman should wait and see how the inquiries are set up. I understand that Dr. Anderson will shortly announce how he intends to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the process is more open and transparent than he thinks and that people will have the opportunity both to make their case and to see the outcome—it will all be in the public domain. Of course, we can argue over these points, but I believe that our approach is the right way to obtain the answers that we need as quickly as possible.
	The reason why I cannot accept the new clause is that if we set up such a target, with all the unknowns and variables that I have described, it could have the perverse effect—certainly not intended by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)—of discouraging rapid slaughter in some cases. If there is a target of 48 hours and it is difficult to meet that target—for whatever logistical reason—there would be a disincentive to slaughter as quickly as possible. If we are to use culling as part of disease control—we can argue about the alternatives to culling—the key is to carry it out as quickly as possible. The new clause would undermine that principle.

Keith Simpson: We have held an interesting, short debate. My hon. Friends and I and Liberal Democrat Members are not especially convinced by the Minister's argument. In fact, I am not even sure that many Members on either side of the House are convinced of the general arguments in favour of the Bill. The Minister is a fair man, who is frequently left by his ministerial colleagues to bat alone, and he is only too aware that there is silence about the measure—at best—and some criticism. It is always difficult for Government supporters to criticise their own Government.
	The debate has shown, first, that the Minister accepts that, in principle, he believes there should be a 48-hour target and, secondly, despite what the Minister has said, that most hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it would have been possible to have had a short, open and public debate on the lessons learned. Rather than looking for scapegoats, we are looking for practical lessons to learn.

Tony Cunningham: It has been announced that one of the three inquiries will take place shortly, but that will take six months. The great fear among farmers in Cumbria and all the tourism-related industries is that, if there were an outbreak of foot and mouth next February or March, it would decimate agriculture in Cumbria and destroy many of the tourism industries in that county. I support a broad range of measures that can be used to ensure that we do not get ourselves into the position that we faced with the original outbreak of the disease.

Keith Simpson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but this is pure Corporal Jones—people cry, "Don't panic," but that is exactly what the Government are doing. I have long experience of defence matters, and however appalling the Ministry of Defence has been at times, the one thing that it has learned from experience is that lessons have to be learned very quickly. In fact, the Minister wants a shotgun version of legislation to cover all kinds of contingencies because, frankly, neither first MAFF, nor now DEFRA knows what went on and has got the answers.
	The majority opinion on both sides of the Chamber is that a short, sharp inquiry could have been held and that the organisational and logistical lessons could have been learned very much in accordance with the standard operating procedures that the MOD applied in Cumbria.
	I hope that we have established that the Minister accepts the 48-hour target in principle. He is less sure in his rejection of the fact that we would like that target to be included in the Bill. My hon. Friends and I will not press the new clause to a Division, but I suspect that the issue may be taken up in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Transport of animals destined for slaughter

'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 8—
	"8A Transport of animals destined for slaughter 
	A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) he transports, or knowingly causes or permits to be transported, any animal destined for slaughter for more than 8 hours".'.—[David Taylor.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Bringing of animals to markets—
	'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 8—
	"8A Bringing of animals to markets 
	A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) he brings, or knowingly causes or permits to be brought, to market any animal which has been brought to a market in the previous 20 days.".'.

David Taylor: Parts of the Bill deal with the control of foot and mouth disease when an outbreak is under way, and other parts deal with minimising the risk of such outbreaks occurring in future. We are not certain how foot and mouth disease got into Britain, but it is widely accepted that its rapid and extensive spread was due to at least two factors.
	The first factor was multiple movements, especially of sheep. Animals were transported in and out of markets and other premises several times in quick succession by dealers who tried to turn a quick profit by, for example, buying animals at one market and selling them at another a few days later.
	The second aspect was the fact that animals travelled long distances to slaughter, which has become more common in the past few years. Long journeys to slaughter and multiple journeys in and out of markets risk spreading infectious animal diseases, and lead to poor welfare—the two are clearly connected. Long journeys are more stressful than short ones, and multiple journeys involve repeated loadings and unloadings, with animals frequently being mixed with unfamiliar animals. Both those consequences are regularly identified as major stresses for animals.
	New clause 9 aims to tackle one of those problems by imposing a maximum limit of eight hours on the time it takes to transport animals to slaughter. The tendency for animals to be taken on much longer journeys to slaughter is greater than it was a few years ago, and it has arisen for a number of reasons. The first is the closure of many local abattoirs. In England, almost two thirds have closed in recent years, leaving us with about 300. Secondly, farmers and dealers drive animals past nearby abattoirs and take them to much more distant ones.

Michael Weir: I seek clarification on what the eight-hour limit involves. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that eight hours in total is all that would be allowed, or is he saying that, if there were a break after eight hours, a further journey could be permitted? That is an important matter for those in the north of Scotland. Although the Bill does not at present apply to Scotland, if by some unfortunate chance subsequent amendments are passed, it may do so. The cumulative effect of those amendments and the hon. Gentleman's new clauses would lock out many people in the highlands and islands of Scotland from valuable markets.

David Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman could contain his curiosity, I shall come to that point. I have a specific example that relates to the western isles.
	A further point about abattoirs is that supermarkets too frequently insist on sourcing all their meat from just a few large industrial-scale abattoirs and often refuse to use local ones.
	A maximum time limit of eight hours, as envisaged in new clause 9, would halt the worst of the long journeys. Indeed, I believe that the journeys should be much shorter than eight hours; animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm on which they were reared. Eight hours, however, is the shortest limit that the European Union allows member states to impose on slaughter journeys. The relevant EU provision authorises member states
	"to provide for a maximum non-extendable journey time of eight hours for the transport of animals destined for slaughter, where the transport is carried out exclusively within their own territory".
	We have spent some time in the debate looking back at the lessons, if there were any, of the foot and mouth outbreak in 1967. The world has moved on in many ways. For example, 34 years ago, there was an established network of local abattoirs, which we think might be connected to the fact that the disease was located substantially in just one region of the country. Hon. Members should bear that point in mind when considering whether to support the new clause.
	The maximum eight-hour limit is in line with the EU directive and it would have more effect in preventing the causes of an epidemic and would not allow the previous culture to continue of getting the cheapest price for slaughter no matter the distance involved in getting the cattle, pigs, sheep or whatever to slaughter.
	I draw a specific example to the attention of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). In September this year, several consignments of sheep were transported by sea from the Scottish islands to the west coast port of Oban. From there, they were taken by road all the way to Birmingham, not far from where I live, for slaughter. In the interests of animal welfare and health, those animals could and should have been slaughtered at an abattoir on the Scottish mainland. They should not have been brought on a very long journey to the midlands of England. Surely, such journeys cannot be allowed to continue for very much longer.
	In the long term, the eight-hour limit that the new clause would introduce should be reduced further still. Of course, there is commercial anxiety in the farming community, which has endured one of its worst periods in decades, and the imposition of any new limit should not be economically damaging. Central Government could provide encouragement by giving short-term financial support, beginning, perhaps, with small, local abattoirs.
	The EU directive, which is incorporated in UK law, is weak in several respects, and the new clause aims to strengthen it. For example, the directive allows calves in so-called higher standard vehicles to travel for a total of 18 hours with a one-hour stop mid-journey to give them water and, if necessary, feed. In its 1992 report on the transport of farm animals and pets, the European Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee recommended that calves should travel for no more than eight hours before a break, which should last for at least three hours to allow them to drink to repletion.
	Similarly, the RSPCA is very concerned about the provisions of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, which implements the EU directive, because it fails adequately to safeguard the welfare of transported animals. With poor welfare come stress, a predisposition towards infection and all the animal health problems that the Bill will tackle. The EU directive and the 1997 order need strengthening if animal welfare problems are to be avoided, and we need to press for a review of them. Many organisations have pressed for a review and highlighted the points that particularly need to be addressed.
	There are unsatisfactory and inadequate practices in existing abattoirs that receive animals that have been transported on long journeys. Indeed, their practices generate those long journeys because they will only take animals of a certain age and species, and therefore of a certain market value. That unnecessarily increases pressure on the UK's shrinking network of abattoirs, to which I have referred, and can only serve to push up average journey times to slaughter even further.
	We need licensing. We want to maximise journey times, but if we cannot monitor those journeys, the provision will be a dead letter on the statute book. We need to license all individuals involved in the transportation of live animals, and that should be a legal requirement. Transportation is an intrinsically stressful experience for farmed livestock. They are exposed to unfamiliar experiences, environments and animals, and can suffer physical discomfort and/or injury, as well as mental distress. The duration of the journey, the conditions on board, the handling during loading and unloading, the frequency of travel and the provision of water and feed can all have a stressful impact on animals, and the licensing of individuals involved in transportation will help us to monitor the implementation of the new clause.
	Perhaps we can encourage improvement by fiscal means. Perhaps the subsidy received under the common agricultural policy should be dependent on observance at particular farms of agreed animal welfare standards, including limits on journey-to-slaughter times. Linked to that would be more detailed recording of individual farm animals, which would assist in tracing their journey to slaughter in the event of another outbreak of a farm animal disease such as foot and mouth. Farm animal welfare concerns such as a limit on journey-to-slaughter times should in any case be included in the so-called non-trade concerns of the World Trade Organisation. That would lead to negotiations on a global platform to raise the profile and legitimacy of these concerns.
	Of course, the impact on farmers and consumers has to be considered whenever we in this place legislate to improve animal health and welfare. The new clause would have a very limited impact on consumers. I hope that DEFRA Ministers and representatives can enter into discussions with the five mega-supermarket chains to ensure that their corporate appetites do not distort the animal and public health-based reasoning that motivates the clause. Supermarket distribution networks should not be allowed to continue to dictate journey-to-slaughter times.
	New clause 10 provides that, once an animal has been brought to market, it cannot be brought back to that market or taken to another one for 20 days. That would make an important contribution to stopping animals being taken in and out of markets in quick succession and would prevent the mass exposure of vulnerable animals. At the outset of the foot and mouth crisis, it became clear that many sheep were moved in quick succession in and out of markets and other premises as dealers tried to make small, rapid profits on them. For example, a dealer might buy animals at one market then, a few days later, sell them at another market hoping to make a small mark-up. Dealers make no contribution to farming in my estimation; they do not involve the animals in a genuine farming operation and simply trade them as commodities.
	Multiple journeys played a major role in the rapid spread of foot and mouth and led to poor welfare, as animals were subject to frequent loading and unloading, mixed with unfamiliar animals and encountered other highly stressful circumstances. Such journeys have to be stopped as they can lead to serious problems and are not a necessary part of farming. New clause 10 would end the practice of animals being moved in and out of markets in quick succession and would not allow them to be brought to the original market or any other market in a 20-day period.
	The provision would tackle a problem recognised on both sides of the House, and by all parts of the farming community, veterinary practitioners and others. It would prevent a current practice in British farming that accelerated the rapid spread of the disease earlier this year. In many cases, multiple journeys prevented the successful tracing of the origins of the disease. The number of times that animals were transported between markets, often in a single day, resulted in mass exposure to other fatigued and traumatised animals. The 20-day moratorium on market-to-market journeys provides sufficient time for a disease such as foot and mouth to show up in infected animals. Not only would it allow infected flocks and herds to be isolated, but it would allow local conditions to be assessed for compatibility with the spread of the disease, thus reducing the possibility of an indiscriminate cull, frequently referred to not only by Opposition Members but by Government Members, in a designated area.
	Animal licences should be reviewed and revised to include the number of journeys that animals have undertaken in their life. Vulnerability and possible exposure to disease can then be assessed in the event of the outbreak of a farm animal disease such as foot and mouth. A reduction in the number of journeys between markets would result in long-term savings for farmers and a reintroduction of the abattoir in the local economy. Multiple journeys were born out of the drive to maximise profit per animal with such intensity and frequency that the inherent short-termism of that behaviour inevitably led to problems—and what a massive problem it eventually led to.
	Reducing the frequency of journeys would make farm animals healthier, and indeed create a more viable acceptable and higher-value product. Members in the Chamber today and members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee who have come into contact with farmers and others agree that farm animal welfare is high on their list of priorities. The provision would allow them to make more concessions to farm animal welfare, such as space for animals when being transported, regular watering stops and standardised qualifications for those loading and unloading animals.
	I regularly meet farmers in my constituency—I had a delegation from the National Farmers Union at my last advice session on Saturday. Although, fortunately, we in the midlands were largely unaffected by the disease, the farmers note that the Government did not introduce an immediate ban on all animal movements once the first case had been discovered in the abattoir in Essex. Had a 20-day moratorium on market-to-market journeys been in place, that infected animal would have been identified before it got to the abattoir, which would have reduced the exposure of other animals to foot and mouth disease.
	We Labour Members are keen to ensure that in our policies and practices we deliver what we promised to the British people. Our manifesto commitment was to
	"create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector within a thriving rural economy which advances environmental, health and animal welfare goals."
	Those elements are not mutually exclusive, as local abattoirs have found to their cost.
	A 20-day moratorium would restore some sanity and community considerations to a market that has been voracious in its consumption of animals for profit. It would also be vital insurance against another epidemic, and would buy the Government of the day—we hope that that would be decades away and that Labour would still be in power—some diagnostic breathing space, which was unavailable earlier this year. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister an encouraging response to both new clauses.

Elliot Morley: New clauses 9 and 10 are important. My hon. Friend is right. If the aim is to stop disease spreading and to control and manage disease, the movement of animals is key. During the outbreak, a 20-day stop was put in place. My hon. Friend is also right about the long-distance movement of animals and the growth of livestock dealers. In the period between the introduction of the disease into this country and its identification, there were probably 1.3 million sheep movements, which spread the disease through the markets all the way down the west coast and into the west country.
	Those are serious issues, which we must address. My hon. Friend is right to raise them, and he might take some encouragement from what I am about to say. On the transport of animals, there is currently an eight-hour limit within the UK. Under EU rules, longer journeys are permitted in a higher standard of vehicle. The long-distance movement of animals is not just a UK issue. The conditions for the movement of animals over long distances throughout the EU and across boundaries is an EU issue.
	I was pleased to hear yesterday that Commissioner Byrne identified animal movements as one of the matters that the EU will have to address through the Council of Ministers as part of disease control. The place to consider time restrictions on the long-distance movement of animals is in the EU, because the limits must apply to all farmers, not just those in the UK. They must apply to the long-distance transport of live exports for slaughter from this country all the way down to Italy and Greece, which I find very hard to justify.

Tony Cunningham: Given that by 2004 an enlarged European Union may include 25 countries, and given that there are probably more farmers in Poland and Romania than in all the current 15 EU countries combined, will not the problem be even bigger in the future?

Elliot Morley: That is absolutely right, which is all the more reason why we must address the problem now in terms of European directives. I assure my hon. Friend that that is what we will do and that we will press the matter in the Council of Ministers.
	On the 20-day stop, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was again absolutely right. I not only accept his argument in relation to markets, but believe that we need to go further. Animals are moved around for a range of reasons. We need a package of measures dealing with a series of scenarios in which animals need to be stopped for disease-control purposes, which go beyond the issue of markets. There are also issues in relation to the practicalities of the livestock industry. In that respect, we must take into account some of the legitimate concerns of livestock farmers about quarantine stops, and we intend to do so. So, the other assurance that I can give him is that we take absolutely seriously the point that he made, but will deal with it in a package of measures that includes that point but also goes a bit further.

Candy Atherton: That is very welcome news. Can my hon. Friend give a timetable that tells us when the package of measures might be introduced? The package will be well received in my constituency and more widely.

Elliot Morley: Yes, I can. The 21-day stop is currently in place as a disease-control measure. We sympathise with livestock farmers in terms of some of the practicalities of the livestock trade. We want to address those issues, but we also want to put in place a package of measures in relation to stops, including markets and other scenarios, as part of a disease-control measure. We will start discussions with the agriculture and livestock sector immediately with a view to securing agreement on the matter some time in the new year.

David Taylor: My purpose in tabling new clauses 9 and 10 was rooted in my belief that animal welfare and therefore animal health are seriously compromised both by the length of journey times and the number of journeys that individual animals make. The review this year of the European directive on transportation is indeed a good opportunity to reduce the maximum journey time to eight hours and I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend said in that regard. The system of multiple journeys in the United Kingdom, which is often related to the involvement of dealers, must be reviewed without delay.
	Animal welfare and animal health are twin themes and have been interwoven throughout this whole debate. They are part of the same issue. We need to reflect on that issue and tackle it as a Government. I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend said about the standstill proposals that he hopes to bring to the House at some future date. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	National Contingency Plan

'In the 1981 Act, the following section is inserted after section 36—
	"36A National Contingency Plan
	The Government shall prepare and regularly maintain in consultation with interested public and private bodies a national contingency plan for foot–and–mouth disease, which shall be laid before Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The purpose of the new clause is to require the Government to draw up, maintain and publish a national contingency plan for dealing with future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. There is widespread evidence that the Government and their agencies were wholly unprepared for the emergency that broke earlier this year. I have looked at the Government's published contingency plan, which is available on the internet. To say that it is rudimentary would be an understatement. It turns out to be very much what the Minister himself described as an outline strategy. It is our contention that an outline strategy is insufficient to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth, as we found in the course of this year. That might explain why the strategy was so hopelessly inadequate and had no identifiable bearing on the way the Government carried out their duties in the event of this year's outbreak. An outline strategy was a recipe for chaos and confusion, and I am afraid that that is precisely what we got.
	The evidence of the public inquiry in Devon, which was chaired by Professor Mercer and was mentioned earlier, is especially revealing about the state of preparations in the Department. It reported:
	"It was not obvious to us from the evidence received that MAFF was working to any form of coherent contingency plan. This, in spite of actual evidence that the Government had submitted such a plan to the European Union in 1993 and that some low level MAFF planning was proceeding in 1999. Lessons, which should have been learned from the outbreak in 1967, did not appear to have been implemented, and recommendations of the official report into that outbreak were ignored."
	That point was supported by Mr. Alan Richardson, a retired vet who was involved with the 1967 outbreak and offered his services in Cumbria on the outbreak of the disease this year. He said that the lessons learned from the 1967 epidemic were set out in the report of the Northumberland committee, and that
	"the public had every reason to suppose that its conclusions formed the basis of the contingency plan in place in January 2001."
	It is curious that Ministers are at pains to point out that the circumstances have changed greatly since 1967. The Minister did so in an earlier debate. The Government have published a document called "Comparisons with 1967: How the 2001 outbreak of Foot and Mouth differs from the 1967 outbreak". The aim of the paper is not only to let them off the hook but to boast about how well they did in controlling the latest outbreak. That is incredible. It is one of the most unjustified pieces of self-congratulatory humbug that I have come across for a long time.
	The Government have gone to enormous lengths to point out the differences between 1967 and today. One would therefore expect them to disagree with Mr. Alan Richardson's comments that the public had every reason to suppose that the conclusion of the Northumberland report formed the basis of the 2001 contingency plan. However, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 13 July, the Minister stated:
	"The recommendations in 'The Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Foot-and-Mouth Disease', parts 1 and 2, published 7 March 1969 and 3 November 1969 (the Northumberland report) formed the basis of the Government's policy for keeping the disease out of the country, and of our contingency plans for fighting an outbreak of foot and mouth."—[Official Report, 13 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 686W.]
	On the one hand, we are told that there are enormous differences between 1967 and now, and on the other, that the 1967 experience formed the basis for the contingency plan that was in place in 2001. We have a mess that is riddled with contradictions. That may help explain the subsequent problems. Alan Richardson reported for duty at the Carlisle office on 1 March. If a proper contingency plan had been in place, would he have said:
	"At the Carlisle Office . . . there was inadequate office space and very few supplies of any kind . . . There was not a spare thermometer in the office . . . The organisation was completely overwhelmed and the bemused confusion among the staff of all ranks proclaimed that there had been no contingency planning at all. This situation persisted for some weeks"?
	The evidence from Devon and Cumbria, from one end of the country to the other, clearly established that there was no effective contingency plan in place. We therefore entirely endorse the recommendation in the preliminary findings of the Mercer inquiry. It states that
	"a National Contingency Plan . . . needs to be developed. It should identify the organisations that will be involved in response to Foot and Mouth in a County or Unitary authority area, and explain their responsibilities and the ways they will work together. It should be part of an emergency planning process that involves all the main players in its construction, testing and regular rehearsal."
	For geographical equilibrium, I should say that we also support the first recommendation of the Shropshire county council inquiry. The Minister said that he had not seen it. That recommendation states:
	"It is essential that a high level Foot and Mouth Contingency Plan is prepared by DEFRA to link in with Local Authority emergency plans in general and animal health and welfare contingency plans in particular."
	Like the Mercer inquiry in Devon, the Shropshire inquiry found evidence of serious and avoidable flaws in the way the outbreak was handled. The inquiry heard about the
	"lack of a consistent policy from MAFF on the culling of animals . . . a lack of communication"
	from the local office,
	"problems in having to deal with different veterinary regions",
	and the
	"frustration caused by the lack of communication from DEFRA on issues relating to the licensing and movement of animals".
	I could go on, but time is pressing. The Minister really should have looked at the Shropshire county council report, and I recommend that he does so as soon as possible. He might learn some useful information from it.
	From Devon to Cumbria to Shropshire we find that the problems on the ground were the same. They were avoidable problems that affected every area of the country in which foot and mouth broke out. If there had been a proper contingency plan, action would have been swifter, the damage could have been dramatically limited and the cost—in every sense—could have been dramatically reduced. If there had been a proper contingency plan, all animal movements would have stopped as soon as the outbreak was officially reported, the Army would have been brought into play sooner, and we would not have had the dithering and confusion over the benefits or otherwise of vaccination which characterised much of the debate earlier in the year.
	In the light of the terrible experience suffered by rural communities, businesses and families, the massive cost to our economy which will be counted for months if not years to come, and the tragedy for animal welfare, I have to ask the House whether an outline strategy is really enough. The Minister has asserted that, despite all the differences between 1967 and now, the Northumberland report forms the basis of the Government's policy for foot and mouth disease.
	Recommendation 5 of the report states:
	"A comprehensive plan should be in readiness for the mobilisation of resources within and outside the Ministry . . . in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease."
	In other words, it recommends a contingency plan. That is what the new clause would achieve, and I commend it to the House.

Teddy Taylor: I do not want to hold the House up, but may I ask one small question of the Minister? I hope that, with all this review of national contingency plans, some thought will be given to whether there was merit in having a slaughter at all. The Minister will be aware that foot and mouth is rather like flu, in that it lasts a short period of time, and does no long-term damage to animals or to those who consume them.
	The real problem is one of export and of massive over-production in the European Union. Instead of thinking of new slaughter policies, it would be infinitely better if the Government and their colleagues in the European Union could find a way of dealing with the massive problem of over-production, which is getting worse and will become infinitely worse with the extension of the European Union. As an Opposition Back Bencher, it seems to me that neither the Government nor anyone else are willing to look at the issue of over-production. It is a nightmare, not a matter to be laughed at or scorned. It is eating up massive amounts of money, and we should at least consider it in the long term.

Elliot Morley: I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who I know has a long-standing interest in animal welfare. I do not disagree with his point about production numbers, and about the drivers associated with the common agricultural policy, which in some cases can add to the over-production. Those issues must be addressed.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we need to consider all alternative methods in relation to disease control, which means looking into alternatives to large-scale culling of the kind that we witnessed. I expect that the inquiries that will take place will find that the strategy that was applied was probably the only strategy that would have brought the disease under control in this outbreak. But that does not mean that we should not think of alternatives, which would also be part of a contingency approach.
	I do not dispute that we should have contingency plans, but I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the suggestion that foot and mouth disease is like flu to the animals affected. That is just not true. It has severe welfare consequences, particularly for pigs and cattle, and it is a horrible disease that may cause genuine suffering for those animals. Even in sheep, which do not show the symptoms as much as cattle and pigs, it can lead to severe mortality rates in young animals, and to spontaneous abortion. It can also leave the animals sickly and weakened. Foot and mouth is a farm animal welfare issue; it is a disease. We must take its control seriously for farm animal welfare reasons, let alone all the others.
	On the new clause, of course it is important that we have contingency plans, but it is no surprise that the existing one is based on the Northumberland plan. That involved the most thorough review, although issues have changed and time has moved on.
	It is wrong to suggest that the contingency plan was not exercised, because regular exercises did take place. Indeed, a regional office that was involved in an exercise rang round to check the availability of supplies needed to deal with a foot and mouth outbreak, which was a cause of the myth that the disease arrived in the country before it did. The exercise was part of keeping the contingency plan up to date and ensuring that people were familiar with it.
	It is fair to say that the scale of the outbreak went beyond that for which the contingency plan was set up. There was no experience of such an outbreak in our country or, for that matter, in any other country, so there are serious issues to address. That forms part of the inquiries and there are lessons to be learned: we must introduce an amended and updated contingency plan, which brings me back to the point that the Bill gives us more flexibility and a wider range of options to include in a contingency proposal.
	I accept that, these days, it is important for contingency plans to be put in the public domain and people should have the chance to comment on them. The existing contingency plan, which has been made public, as the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, was designed to deal with operational issues. It did not deal with disease control policies, which are a different issue. That is a difference in respect of the contingency plan to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
	I have no objection to pulling together the lessons that will emerge from the inquiries, making them public, having a public consultation, producing an updated and revised contingency plan and ensuring that there is public involvement, but we do not need to include all that in the Bill. The Phillips report charged the Government with ensuring that contingency plans are in place to meet a range of issues, and that is what we have done.
	For example, a later contingency plan dealing with the risk of BSE in sheep has been published. I put it in the public domain and ensured that it was available for public comment, although it is unfortunate that the press jumped on the bits that they found most interesting and appeared not to have read the rest. Contingency plans need to be updated and reviewed regularly and it is reasonable that they are put in the public domain for comment, but I give the assurance that there is no need for the new clause.

Peter Ainsworth: The Minister makes helpful remarks. Throughout, he disagrees with nothing, but he agrees with nothing as well. We are always tempted to believe him, but we do not trust the Government, so we shall press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 332.

Question accordingly negatived.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, there is a well established convention of the House called the Sewel procedure, which has been exercised some 28 times in the two and a half years since the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. If the House intends to legislate on areas that were devolved under that Act, the Scottish Parliament has to have a debate on a so-called Sewel motion to transfer those areas to this place. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 would have the effect of amending the Scotland Act 1998 and taking back to this place subjects that were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Sewel procedure was introduced as a protection against anti-Scottish elements in this place reversing devolution.
	The Tory party may say one thing in Scotland and something entirely different here. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say whether the Scottish Parliament has exercised the Sewel motion? Has there been any communication or consultation with the Scottish Parliament, or are amendments Nos. 21 and 22 a back-stairs attempt to take away powers devolved under the Scotland Act?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not going to reach the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but will now move on to Third Reading.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had a detailed debate in Committee and on Report. I sometimes felt that it was not altogether focused and earlier thought that we had spent two hours on some other Bill, but all the principal issues have been covered nevertheless. Hon. Members have made some sensible, reasonable and constructive suggestions and comments.
	Concerns have been raised about the timing of the Bill, but I repeat that the epidemic is not over yet. The Government are not complacent: we still think that the risks are comparatively high and, although they will diminish proportionately as time passes, we will not drop our guard. It is important that the Bill contain measures to increase the range of options available to fight disease, and to ensure that any option that is used is applied efficiently and without the undue delay that can allow disease to spread and jeopardise a great many people.
	I recognise that there is a need for consultation on all aspects of the Bill, but it is not true that the consultation has been insufficient and rushed. For example, there has been extensive consultation about the part of the Bill dealing with scrapie. It was made clear in that consultation that the Government would bring forward compulsory measures at some stage, and that is what we are doing.
	Also, we are engaging with the industry to sort out details of the time scale of the national scrapie plan. We very much welcome those negotiations, in which industry representatives have been very helpful and constructive, as they have all along.
	In addition, I discussed the Bill with the foot and mouth disease stakeholders group set up by the Department, which used to meet every week at one stage of the outbreak. It includes representatives from every species organisation in this country, and everyone involved in the livestock sector is represented in the group. I was able to have a long discussion with the group about the Bill and its details, and I also had further discussions with industry organisations. Therefore, there has been a lot of consultation and discussion about the Bill.
	The House might be interested to know that the stakeholder group has been so successful that the Government propose to retain it and to form it into an animal health group. That will mean that the livestock industry will be permanently involved in consultation with the Department on all issues of animal disease. The proposal has been very much welcomed by members of that group.
	The Government also propose to be open and transparent in our implementation of the measures. In Committee, I gave a detailed commitment to bring forward wide-ranging consultation on key provisions in the Bill in the new year. My officials are working on that at present. That consultation will include the criteria governing the use of new slaughter powers and the implementation of the scrapie provisions that I mentioned earlier.
	It has been suggested that we should wait for the results of the independent inquiries before introducing disease- control measures. However, I think that the matter is too important. I repeat that the Bill contains nothing that precludes the findings of the independent inquiries, or to suggest that the Government prefer one disease control measure over another.
	I am anxious that we have as wide a range of options as possible. No one wants there to be culling on the scale evident in this epidemic, given all the associated problems that went with it. I repeat that I suspect that the inquiries will probably conclude that there was no other option but to deal with outbreak as we did—that is, by implementing the culling programme. However, new technology is on the horizon, and changes in the role of vaccination will give us a wider range of options.
	I remind the House that the international conference will have to consider matters such as trade rules, as they place a restraint on vaccination. Again, the aim is to achieve as wide a range of options as possible.
	I welcome the scrutiny that the Bill has had. It also received detailed pre-scrutiny by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was a useful experience.
	I agreed in Committee to consider a number of useful suggestions arising from amendments such as the time scale of the appeal period in which farmers can make representations about the disease risk assessment and the level of the adjusted compensation award. I intend to take those issues forward, along with points raised by my hon. Friends today. We might include those as part of our consultation on the implementation of the powers in the Bill. If appropriate, I am prepared to ensure that amendments are brought forward when the Bill reaches another place.

Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned the Select Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. However, I think that he will accept that the Bill was put together and has gone through at a fair lick. The one legislative body that has not had the chance to scrutinise the Bill so far is the National Assembly for Wales. If it brings forward any amendments or suggestions between the Bill leaving this House and being debated in another place, will the Minister confirm that he will consider them and that he will involve the assembly in the consultation?

Elliot Morley: I will ensure that the National Assembly is involved in the consultation because it will be as wide as possible. We have been in close touch with our colleagues in the National Assembly in relation to putting the Bill together. However, I refute the point that the Bill has been rushed. We are still in a serious situation—the epidemic is not yet over. We need to consider that, and the sooner these measures are in place, I believe, the better it will be. We will arrange consultation on the aspects that I have mentioned as quickly as possible.
	Much of the focus has been on slaughter, which is understandable. People are concerned about their animals being slaughtered. There are also the issues of pet farm animals and sanctuaries, which we want to address. If we are to use slaughter, whether as part of a wider strategy or on its own—the options are open—it must be done quickly and effectively. The quicker we do it, the fewer animals will be culled. Part of the reasoning is that if we are to use a culling policy, we should minimise it to minimise the number of animals affected.
	I emphasise that the Bill is not just about powers to slaughter animals. We should get away from that idea. It also provides powers to enter premises for the purposes of testing, sampling or conducting a vaccination programme, should those options be appropriate. Some Members who have spoken are in favour of vaccination as an option; measures in the Bill strengthen the position on vaccination, so I hope that we will have their support.
	We want to ensure that in the appeal process, sensitive issues such as pet farm animals are taken into account. However, the Bill does not take away the right of appeal on slaughter. People will still have the right to appeal to the divisional veterinary manager. It is my intention to publish the criteria on which that will be based. I intend to clarify the process with farming representatives and other interested groups during the consultation process in the new year.
	I am surprised to see some reports suggesting that the Bill will give us powers to kill horses, dogs, cats, goldfish and hamsters. It will not. I made it very clear in Committee that the criteria in the Bill apply to susceptible animals. [Interruption.] We cannot kill anything we like. The position is defined in the Animal Health Act 1981 and it can only be changed by order. I cannot imagine circumstances in which it would be changed.
	We are also taking a new approach to compensation on affected premises. I make no apologies for that. We have had a very good debate on it. I accept that only a minority of people are concerned, but I do not see why the rights of the majority should be put at risk because of the actions of a minority. The proposed measures are proportionate and balanced. We intend to take them forward.
	The scrapie proposals have been generally welcomed. The vast majority of people in the sheep industry believe that scrapie eradication is a sensible and desirable objective. We want to bring that forward. We are obtaining good co-operation, and I have made it clear to the industry that the powers are enabling and that it is unlikely that the compulsory element in the national scrapie programme would be needed until some years down the line, as part of the agreed discussion on that plan.
	I welcome the debate: in general, it was sensible and constructive—although perhaps rather long at times. We might have moved faster, although I certainly do not criticise the involvement of Opposition Members. However, I have a serious point to make. If they are still thinking of opposing the Bill, they should consider what they are opposing: the opportunity to bring in a range of options—including strengthening the vaccination option, and taking blood tests and samples. They will be undermining the rights of the majority who are put at risk by the actions of a minority. They will be undermining the Government's speed of action in response to such outbreaks. That response would reduce the number of culled animals—surely that is everyone's objective.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Elliot Morley: In a moment.
	Hon. Members who oppose the Bill would also be opposing measures to impose sanctions against people who bring about deliberate infection. Opposition to the measure would mean opposing the introduction of the national scrapie plan. That eradication programme is good for consumers and for the sheep industry, and has been generally welcomed.
	I cannot believe that the Opposition want to oppose all those objectives; nor can I believe that they have failed to realise that, during the Bill's proceedings, I have given a series of undertakings to address the reasonable concerns expressed by organisations outside the House. That will form part of a public consultation in the new year.
	When the Bill is finalised, the current provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981 will be better, more transparent and flexible, and will take into account a wider range of circumstances.

Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not present for the Third Reading to support her hard- working Minister.
	I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to today's debates and to the Standing Committee: they deserve particular congratulations. I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and our esteemed colleague, the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). For my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), it was their first experience as members of a Standing Committee—[Hon. Members: "It did not show."] Indeed. They acquitted themselves with great distinction. Sadly, they have also learned that it is one thing to win the arguments, but another to win the vote.
	Particular praise is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on whom much of the responsibility for opposing the Bill has fallen. She led her team with her customary vigour and thoughtfulness.
	When the Bill began, it was bad. We can welcome some of it, but all in all it was a bad Bill and it remains a bad Bill. It is greatly to be regretted that, despite all our debates, nothing substantial has happened to alter that.
	Anxieties about the Bill have brought together some strange bedfellows. Throughout, although the Minister sounded conciliatory, he was in fact unyielding. For the most part, he brushed aside the objections of animal welfare groups, environmental bodies, veterinary surgeons, farmers' representatives and other outside bodies. In doing so he has reinforced the growing feeling that this is an arrogant Government who are intolerant of criticism, closed to other people's views and careless of civil liberties.
	Throughout these proceedings we have tried to stand up for the rights of individuals and for fair treatment. We have sought to persuade the Government that many of the new powers that they seek in the Bill are unreasonable, unfair and illiberal. On every occasion, the Government have rejected our arguments. It is wrong in principle for the state to assume new powers without seeking to balance them with adequate rights of representation for ordinary citizens. That is the way of totalitarianism.
	I have said before that written into the heart of the Bill is an assumption that farmers were to blame for the foot and mouth outbreak. That is the basic premise on which the Bill rests, and it is untrue. From that starting point, Ministers have proceeded to seek to justify overturning the normal burden of proof in the compensation arrangements, assuming powers to enter property and slaughter livestock as they see fit, denying adequate rights of appeal, and suborning to their will, under threat of imprisonment, anyone who happens to be around at the time, regardless of any moral, ethical, religious or physical objection. They have refused to acknowledge the inadequacy of their own scientific advice, the risk that their actions may have caused to biosecurity or the bungling incompetence of their own procedures.
	Something is clearly very wrong when a Government decide to push through legislation under the heading, "animal health" and then ride roughshod over the concerns of vets. Any legislation demands for its effectiveness the compliance of the people on whom it has an impact; the Bill certainly demands the compliance of the veterinary profession. It might be thought that the Government would pause when a senior vet can publicly say:
	"If this Bill is passed I will do everything in my power to stop the veterinary profession taking any part in its implementation."
	When the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons writes to a national newspaper to express the
	"increasing level of serious concern"
	among its members on the grounds of ethics and the use of "unsupported scientific judgments", it might be thought that the Government would stop.

Elliot Morley: Of course, I saw that letter, but I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has had no contact with DEFRA and has raised no objections to the Bill.

Peter Ainsworth: If the Government had carried out a proper consultation exercise, they would have had plenty of contact with the college and the Minister would be better informed, so the Government carry on. Laws only work by consent. Laws that do not command consent rely on coercion, and coercion, as well as being objectionable, does not work.

Angela Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Ainsworth: I am aware of the shortage of time, but I shall give way.

Angela Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, when I raised the moral dilemma of vets being asked to do something against their better judgment, the Minister replied:
	"If they do not want to work for the Ministry, they do not have to. We are not dragooning vets against their principles."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 December 2001; c. 218.]
	In other words, the veterinary principles did not matter.

Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a very disturbing point, but it merely confirms what I have said—Ministers are riding roughshod over the opinions of professional people whose good will is needed if the Bill is to be in any way a success.
	If the Government had taken the trouble to consult before rushing to legislate, many of the problems might have been avoided, but they are seeking to push through the Bill having consulted no one but their own advisers on large parts of it. If the Government had waited to hear the outcome of their own inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak, they might have been able to produce more proportionate legislation. If the Government had decided to hold a full, independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak and waited to legislate on the basis of its findings, they would have done the right thing.
	The Prime Minister is shortly due to receive a petition signed by well over 100,000 people, demanding a public inquiry.

Bill Wiggin: Two hundred thousand.

Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend says that there are 200,000 signatures. Organisations as diverse as the Countryside Alliance and Friends of the Earth have demanded such an inquiry. Conservatives have called for a full public inquiry into the origins and handling of the disease since March this year, but it is important to recognise that not only Conservatives have done so.

Diana Organ: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Ainsworth: No, I do not have the time.
	The public, national and regional newspapers and magazines, animal rights and environmental groups and farmers are all demanding a public inquiry. Even the Liberal Democrats are demanding a public inquiry and yet the Government have consistently set their face against such an inquiry. Why?
	We are told that this is a listening Government. Why are the listening Government deaf to the demands for an independent public inquiry into the terrible impact of foot and mouth disease, which has cost the country billions of pounds, caused misery to families and businesses across the country, caused millions of healthy animals to be slaughtered and left a legacy of economic hardship that will take years to overcome?
	What have the Government got to hide? Is the truth so very shameful? Just who is calling the shots? We know that, when asked about an independent inquiry on 3 April, the Minister for the Environment, said:
	"Unquestionably there will be one this time, to ascertain the cause and how it happened, and the way we can prevent it happening again. We will want to know how the disease got such a hold."
	That perfectly decent and reasonable commitment was immediately repudiated by Downing street. Not for the first time, the Minister for the Environment was left hanging out to dry. What has the Prime Minister got to hide from a full public inquiry?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry, but I am not giving way.
	The Government's refusal to hold an independent inquiry kicks away the last strut of respectability from the Bill. It is not only foolish, hasty, badly drafted, misdirected, excessive and offensive, but it lacks moral justification. If it becomes law, I have every reason to expect that it will quickly become the subject of at least one legal challenge.
	We in this House can only hope that the Bill will be substantially amended in the upper House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry, but I will not give way to my hon. Friend.
	Better still, the Government should withdraw the Bill altogether and come back with proposals that are proportionate, reasonable and based on considered opinion and recognise the meaning of justice.

Huw Edwards: It has been a pleasure and an honour to serve on the Standing Committee and to listen to the arguments. I have no doubt that all the Committee's members have experience of representing constituencies where foot and mouth was a serious problem. It certainly was in my constituency of Monmouth, which can be said to be contiguous with the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who were also on the Committee. In fact, some farmers in my constituency believe that foot and mouth came from the hon. Gentleman's constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).
	The Bill is an important emergency measure. There are times of crisis, such as BSE and foot and mouth, when the Government have to introduce emergency measures. It would have been wrong to wait for one or two years for inquiries to report and to make recommendations before the Government acted. We all hope and pray that there will not be another outbreak of foot and mouth in next few months but, if there were to be one, can one imagine the criticism that would be levelled if the Government had introduced no measures whatever following the outbreak of 2001 and if they did not have the opportunity to vaccinate and to pay compensation for vaccination?
	There has been a strong debate in my constituency, but the local farmers who were most directly affected by foot and mouth believe that the culling policy, though distressing, was necessary. It was necessary to get ahead of the disease. They were frustrated at the delays that took place in other parts of the country. For example, farmers in my area criticised the delays that occurred nearby such as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean.

Diana Organ: Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the greater good of defeating the disease, the one or two objectors behaved in rather selfish manner in that they probably exacerbated the situation by allowing the disease to spread? We ended up with more animals being culled as a result of their selfishness.

Huw Edwards: My hon. Friend has represented her constituency very well on this matter. Concern was expressed in my constituency that the culling process was halted for one reason or another, including the delays caused by ministerial officials. Nobody can deny that. It was a catastrophic event that overwhelmed the whole country.
	It is absolutely necessary to fill the legal loopholes in the Animal Health Act 1981. It is important that we will now have greater incentives to ensure that biosecurity measures are taken. It is to the great credit of the farming community that there has been no further outbreak for some time now. We were absolutely delighted when Wales was declared free of the disease last week. The meat export trade is resuming, and I hope that it will resume in my part of Wales as soon as possible.
	We do not want to be overwhelmed by such an event again, but many lessons have to be learned. We must ensure that livestock travels shorter distances. I listened with interest to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about the long distances over which much livestock is transported. In south-east Wales we have no major abattoir facility, and much of the livestock in the area is transported unnecessarily long distances. I wish that the farming infrastructure in my area had received greater investment. We need to reopen and modernise our livestock markets and invest in abattoir capacity.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recall that the running down of this country's abattoirs mostly occurred in the 10 years before the 1997 election? Closures have continued, but at a much slower rate.

Huw Edwards: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There has, however, been a further rundown in recent years, and we need to arrest that trend. We need to use bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency to invest in those areas. I wish that we could have objective 1 funding in Monmouthshire to ensure the provision of more abattoir capacity, but we are outside the objective 1 area, so we are unable to invest in the economic development of an industry that has suffered most in recent years. I would be the first to admit that my constituency is relatively affluent, but its farming community has suffered badly in recent years.
	We need greater investment in meat processing facilities, and we need new livestock markets. There is great controversy in my constituency because Monmouth livestock market is fairly run down and does not have as much trade as it should have. Abergavenny market is in need of investment and there is a debate about the creation of a new, modern livestock market that will serve not only Monmouthshire but south-east Wales and beyond, over the border into England.
	The Minister has conducted proceedings on the Bill in his usual expert way. Not every farmer in Monmouthshire will agree with his policies, any more than they agree with my approach on every aspect of agriculture, but there is no doubt that he is dedicated to farming. His tremendous expertise is acknowledged on both sides of the House.
	May I put one point to my hon. Friend? Recently, I attended a meeting of farmers in my constituency in the Cross Ash area, which was very badly affected by foot and mouth. I thought that they might be a little hostile because of the events of the past few months, but they were quite welcoming and hoped that I would take up a particular cause about which they are concerned—the payment of slaughter premiums. Many were not paid the premium although they believe that they are entitled to it. I shall write to my hon. Friend on behalf of Mr. Probert, Mr. Williams, Mr. Sevenoaks and a number of other farmers in my constituency. I sincerely hope that he will be able to consider their case, which I believe to be very strong. I assure him that I will be very happy to talk about the matter in the Lobby tonight.

Malcolm Bruce: We are 26 minutes from the end of the proceedings on the Bill in this House. It is interesting that the Minister has consistently said that plenty of time and thoughtful discussion have been devoted to it, but the Committee debated only six of its clauses in six sittings and returned the Bill to the House completely unamended. It does not look like a Bill that has gone through effective consultation. That is particularly disappointing when one considers that, according to the reports that I have read and the accounts of my hon. Friend the Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), the atmosphere in the Committee was constructive and engaging. The Under-Secretary is a constructive and engaging Minister, but the fact remains that he has not accepted a single amendment or undertaken fully to introduce any amendments before the Bill completes its final stages.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman may have missed what I said about that. A number of issues came up in Committee, and I gave undertakings that I would consider the best way forward which, of course, involves taking advice and looking at legal aspects. I said that, if appropriate, certain provisions that we discussed in Committee which, I conceded, I was willing to look at, could be added to the Bill in another place. There is work to be done on that. We have consulted widely with a range of bodies. To be fair to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, although it has not approached me directly, it went to the Department to discuss the issues with the chief veterinary officer. It has not raised objections to the Bill.

Malcolm Bruce: I appreciate the Minister's intervention, which was characteristic of his style and, I am sure, is backed by many good intentions. However, at the end of the day, one can only judge the Bill on what it says when it completes its passage through the House. In January, we may be back here with a Bill that has been altered; the Minister will then be able to say, "I have been vindicated." However, until he has said that, he can hardly be surprised if we consistently take the view that the Bill is not acceptable in its present form and should be opposed. If our roles were reversed, I do not think that he would expect any opposition party to behave any differently at this stage and in these circumstances.
	The Minister made specific mention of the scrapie provisions and we should be clear that, in fact, the Bill was supposed to deal with scrapie. There was agreement that the voluntary scrapie plan was not working fast enough and that legislation was needed. All parties in the House and all those trying to eliminate scrapie support that. Obviously, there are concerns about rare breeds and questions need to be asked, but that could have been dealt with amicably and constructively in Committee. In reality, reference to scrapie in the Bill consists of one line in the main body of the Bill and one schedule. The rest of the contents have been plucked from the air and that has given rise to contention. The fundamental problem is not the scrapie provisions, but all the other provisions.
	The Minister said that he would consult. Here we are on Third Reading, and he is going to consult. We hoped that the consultation would have taken place first and helped to inform the shape and structure of the Bill. That is what consultation ought to do; it should not take place after the event. Although there has been constitutional adjustment in recent years so that Ministers' words in Hansard can be used in the legal interpretation of an Act, as the Minister well knows, the first thing that any court will look at is what the Act itself says; it is difficult to add the qualifications of Ministers unless the court interprets them as effectively part of the legislation. The Minister is reasonable and is behaving in a reasonable way, but his reasons for not accepting amendments may not be persuasive in the courts at the end of the day.
	The Minister has not succeeded in persuading me or my colleagues of the emergency nature of the Bill. He kept saying—and it is obviously true—that we are not yet at the end of the foot and mouth outbreak. I would like to think that we are close to that. In Scotland and in Wales, technically, we are; in England we soon will be, we hope. Most of us believe that the possibility of a flare-up at this late stage is the Minister's only justification for forcing through the Bill in the time scale. However, there is not an overwhelmingly convincing argument for doing so. After all, southern Scotland was affected by foot and mouth, yet the Scottish Executive did not take DEFRA's view that emergency legislation was needed. I understand that the Scottish Executive will introduce legislation but, unlike DEFRA, will do so after they have consulted the farmers, not before. They will endeavour to take account of their experience and the views of farmers' organisations in Scotland before they introduce legislation in the Scottish Parliament. That approach is commendable and would have been much more acceptable to the House if it had been adopted by DEFRA.
	With the end of the outbreak, we are looking for the re-establishment of export markets. I asked the Minister about that at Question Time today. Farmers in my part of Scotland and sheep farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom would like to think that getting those export markets back in the face of obstructive behaviour by France, which is a vital export market, was more important to Ministers than steamrollering the Bill through Parliament. Ministers should devote all their time and energy to a constructive commitment to farmers.
	The Government have not amended the Bill at all, in spite of strong arguments well supported from various quarters. Those arguments were not party politically motivated, but motivated by a genuine concern to end confrontation between Government and farmers and to secure co-operation, so that together we can stop diseases occurring and spreading. To do that, the Government need everybody on side, not the threat of powerful criminal legislation and powers which, if executed, most people would find offensive and contrary to civil liberties. I am not convinced by the Government's claim that the Bill does not contravene the European convention on human rights.
	On that basis, my colleagues and I will support other hon. Members who find the Bill unacceptable. We will vote against it, and we will not support it until it has been properly amended in another place.

Diana Organ: Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can all say how things should have been, but we would all be severely criticised by the farming community and the general public if, as a result of the horrendous outbreak during the spring and summer, we had taken no action to deal more effectively and speedily with another potential outbreak in the future. We still face a risk. If the disease flared up again into a major outbreak, heaven forfend, and we had taken no action, we would look extremely stupid—

David Taylor: And have been irresponsible.

Diana Organ: Indeed. We recognised in the summer that speed and efficiency were essential in dealing with the outbreak. It is important that we have the ability to fight the disease. We had the worst-ever outbreak of foot and mouth and we need effective weapons to fight it. The Bill strengthens our options. Many felt that vaccination was an option that could have been deployed last time, but for various reasons it was not.
	Widespread concern has been expressed about the Bill and its timing. As the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) mentioned, many people have called for a public inquiry. I, too, have expressed my view that there should have been one. However, other public inquiries have taken years to report, in which case we might not have been able to enact the Bill for another five or six years, until the results of the inquiry had been published, whereas the Anderson inquiry will report within six months.

David Taylor: At the time of the last Conservative Government, when an even greater disaster on a grander scale in every sense occurred, does my hon. Friend recall whether there were calls from the Conservative party for a public inquiry?

Ann Winterton: Double standards!

Diana Organ: The silence was a little deafening, and it was a case of double standards, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said.
	Concern has also been expressed about the scope of the Bill. Much of that concern is based on misinformation. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the Bill does not apply to all animals, such as goldfish, guinea pigs, pot-bellied pigs, which I called pot-bellied sheep in Committee, cats, dogs or horses. It is clear that the Bill relates only to animals that are susceptible to foot and mouth and other animal diseases. There has been much misinformation about the scope of the Bill. In the same way, misinformation has been propagated about the appeals procedure and the right to judicial review.

Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Organ: I am afraid not. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) had little time to speak, and neither have I.
	There has been a lot of misinformation about the Bill, which has caused concern that might not have been engendered if hon. Members on both sides of the House had been a little more honest.
	The Government have taken the opportunity to listen during the scrutiny process. Many issues have been raised and my hon. Friend the Minister has responded very positively. I emphasise the key provisions on consultation, new protocols and new guidelines for vets, as well as new criteria on rights of appeal and on the slaughter power. I have two questions in that context. First, my hon. Friend said that the consultation would occur in the new year. Will he give us a tighter time scale on how long the consultation will last? Secondly, how do people other than stakeholders feed into that consultation? For instance, how do farmers in the Forest of Dean and others there who wanted to object fit in?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is worth saying for the record that it was she and other hon. Members who convinced me to introduce the protocol on which we will be consulting. Of course, we will put the information on the DEFRA website, contact hon. Members who have expressed an interest and make the consultation public to the local press.

Diana Organ: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments.
	My hon. Friend and the Government have been listening to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about the transportation of animals and the maximum time of eight hours. We recognise that the issue of resubmission to market within 20 days, which also arose earlier, is not only an animal welfare matter, but one of the measures that we can put in place to fight disease. I think that we have made progress. The Government have been listening to concerns and looking at the way forward on making the Bill better, perhaps with the insertion of provisions in another place to strengthen it.
	Admittedly, the Bill was considered for a short time in Committee, although I understand that no objection was made about having three days of sittings and that nobody called for further days. We gained from the pre-legislative scrutiny that was undertaken. This is a useful model that helps hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider the effects of legislation before it goes into Second Reading and Committee. I commend the process as a model that we can use in respect of other measures.
	Obviously, all of us are looking forward to the reports of the three inquiries—especially that of Professor Anderson. The lessons to be learned from the devastating outbreak that occurred will be most important for all of us. I hope that the measures in the Bill, which may be amended in another place, are a means of answering the lessons that will identified and will help us to fight this terrible disease in future, so that we do not have to suffer again the misery, destruction and distress that we went through this summer.

Angela Browning: I shall be brief, as I realise that other hon. Members want to contribute.
	The Bill is disproportionate and will almost certainly be challenged under the European convention on human rights. I look forward to seeing it challenged in such a way. The Minister has taken unto himself in the Bill powers that he already has under the 1981 Act regarding the slaughter of diseased animals. He is putting on to the statute book additional powers for slaughter and powers that allow Department officials to come on to people's premises in respect of contiguous culls. I am not talking about animals that are clearly showing clinical signs of disease. I have no opposition at all to such animals being slaughtered out immediately and disposed of as quickly as possible, but the question of how a contiguous cull is identified and expedited is one of the big problems in terms of our experience during the past few months. It was in relation to the contiguous cull that the Government fouled up—and they did so in a big way.
	People's rights—they had them until the Minister produced the Bill—should be respected. The measure is not about controlling animal disease. The Department uses computer modelling to identify the farms, but cannot even find them on an Ordnance Survey map. The Government need to sort out the mess before introducing measures that give the Minister additional powers.
	Hon. Members from all parties have pointed out that the Minister is prepared to take the Bill through without accepting any amendments, even Labour amendments. In Committee, Labour Members tabled reasonable amendments and voted against them under duress. That is astonishing and nonsensical. The measure is not about animal health, but Government power. I hope that it will be challenged in the courts as soon as possible.

Tony Cunningham: I shall be brief. We all agree that we cannot deal with a future outbreak of foot and mouth in the same way as we have tackled the current outbreak, especially in my constituency, which is in Cumbria and has suffered enormously. I feel tremendous sadness for farmers whose animals have been slaughtered and for those whose animals have not been culled but who have suffered all the associated pressures and stress, such as not being to able to move from their farms.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), but I want to enlarge on her points. Prevention is a key element in the fight against foot and mouth. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we need continued vigilance and the tightest biosecurity. However, as I said earlier, we also need to ensure that security at our ports and airports is as tight as possible.
	I support the Bill because it allows us to deal with the epidemic through a different approach, which may include vaccination. Several farmers in my constituency would view that favourably.
	As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said, scrapie formed the basis of the Bill. That was discussed and debated at length in Committee, but not on Report. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider traceability and identification for sheep? Will he propose a scheme for that? If so, will he consider the superb model in my constituency? The successful British Cattle Movement Service deals with the traceability of cattle. I hope that my hon. Friend will examine it and use it as a model for the future.

Bill Wiggin: I shall be brief. Farmers' incomes have fallen by 72 per cent. since 1975 and 40 per cent. of farmers are on family credit and working families tax credit. We have experienced the worst period in the history of agriculture and 5 million animals have been slaughtered. Yet the Government introduce a Bill that will force people not only to lose 25 per cent. of their compensation but to pay to appeal. The Bill will penalise farmers who practise proper biosecurity but will not punish those who deliberately infect. They will be allowed to keep 75 per cent. of their compensation.
	This is a Bill of shame. The part relating to scrapie is based on extremely difficult science. Codon 136—which is involved in the testing for the valene codon—is extremely difficult to identify, and in 80 per cent. of the tests carried out on sheep in my constituency, the tests were incorrect. We have evidence for that. I hope that, when the Minister considers the time frame for the scrapie plan, he will consider the testing methods to be used. It is difficult to find anything good to say about such a punishing Bill. If there is one word that sums up my feelings, it is rage.

Peter Luff: The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) spoke of the dangers of hindsight. This is a remarkable Bill in that it is the first example of perfect foresight. It is perfect because not one amendment was deemed necessary during the passage of the Bill—because of the inadequate time that it has had in Committee and now on the Floor of the House. It demonstrates foresight because it comes before the Government's inquiries have produced what they think is necessary to control foot and mouth disease.
	This is a first: 19 pages of legislative perfection. But it is just not true. The Bill is not needed; it contains nothing on the important issues about improving liaison with the Environment Agency and the Department of Health concerning disposal techniques. All that the Bill will do is make the contiguous cull easier. The contiguous cull is still a matter of deep controversy in the farming community in my constituency. I am thinking of Nicola and Andrew Morris, who have produced compelling evidence that 85 per cent. of the animals slaughtered in this epidemic had no symptoms of foot and mouth disease. We are making a controversial policy easier.
	The Minister is introducing a Bill that is premature, draconian and unwanted. Yet again, this House is going to have to look to another place to do the real business of a democracy and improve a piece of legislation.

Simon Thomas: This was a poor Bill when it was first introduced. It remains a poor Bill as it is unamended, and it does not deserve support. The Minister has been emollient tonight on many issues, but it is not good enough to suggest that amendments may be tabled, or that undertakings may be given, in another place. This House is the representative body for England—and Wales, still. I may not agree with that, but it is. It is important that those amendments should come before this body so that we can discuss them here and with our constituents, whom we are here to represent.
	The Government have taken a soft option with this Bill. They had difficulties with the contiguous cull, and with dealing with other aspects of foot and mouth. They have sought to legislate their way out of the situation—as is always their first instinct when they have difficulties—rather than discussing the way forward with the farming communities. The Department that could not get the difference between sheep's and cows' brains right, and could not map out Wales correctly in relation to the contiguous cull, does not deserve to hold these draconian powers.
	Finally, it is a travesty that the Bill was introduced without discussion with the National Assembly for Wales. That flies in the face of the undertakings and the protocol that exist between the Government and the National Assembly. It is not right that the National Assembly did not know about the Bill until First Reading. I am talking about the Assembly rather than the Minister's friends in the Administration. It is important to underline the difference between the two. The Bill does not deserve the support of the House, and I hope that it will be voted down.

Richard Bacon: The powers in the Bill have been discussed a great deal. Every time the Minister hears something reasonable from the Opposition, he shakes his head. All we have to do is look at what section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981 says about the animals that can be killed, and what section 87 says about the ways in which those animals can be defined and those powers can be extended. The Minister talks about the fact that that would require an order—big deal! That requires a rubber stamp and takes 90 minutes. The combination of sections 32 and 87 of the 1981 Act and this Bill will mean that the Minister can kill whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without giving any reason for doing so.

Bill Wiggin: Without paying for it.

Richard Bacon: The second problem with the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) says, is the question of compensation. The people in the farming community in this country are burning, and they are bleeding. Total income from farming has gone down from £5 billion five years ago to less than £2 billion. The income of the average farmer is £5,000 or less, and it is a disgrace that the Government are making farmers pay penalties, in many cases for the mistakes of the Department.
	The third problem is human rights. The front page of the Bill says that the
	"provisions of the Animal Health Bill are compatible with the Convention"
	on human rights. What a ludicrous statement! The Bill is plainly incompatible with article 6, which provides for the right to a fair trial, and with article 8, which provides for the right to respect for private and family life.
	The fourth problem is illegal imports. The Minister said that he was minded to listen to us, but he would not accept our reasonable new clause, which required no more of him than simply to return to the House once a year to report what has been going on. He took absolutely no notice.
	The problem is that the Bill's real agenda is to make legal what was done that was illegal, namely killing 5 million animals of which 4 million were healthy—

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [4 November].
	The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 189.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Points of Order

Andrew Dismore: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request for a statement in the House on the consequences of today's judgment in the other place that convicted Dame Shirley Porter, former Conservative leader of Westminster city council, of political corruption arising out of her role in the Westminster homes for votes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough already to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that the Adoption and Children Bill is in Committee and that next Tuesday the Committee will discuss the most contentious provisions of the Bill on access to information. It transpires that after the Committee rose this afternoon a copy of a letter to the Chairman saying that the Government had done a complete U-turn on those clauses was released to members. However, I gather that Labour members of the Committee had access to the letter earlier during the Committee sitting this afternoon.
	Is it not a gross discourtesy that the information was not made available to all members of the Committee, given that today is the last date for tabling further amendments, and that those who have tabled amendments, including my hon. Friends and me, were not personally told about the radical changes to the Bill that will be discussed on Tuesday? Would you care to investigate that, because a discourtesy has been done to Conservative and other Opposition Members who sit on that Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He has made his point and put his thoughts on the record. No doubt the people responsible for those matters will read it and take note.

Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your earlier ruling and in view of the fact that the so-called party of law and order, as the Conservatives used to call themselves, has not raised the matter, if we have a situation in which somebody owes £27 million, this House should do something about it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the courts, not for this House.

Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that point of order and I do not intend to return to it.

Dennis Skinner: It is about free speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order and I do not intend to return to it.

Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does it relate to the same of point of order?

Peter Bradley: Well—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Yes, it does.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, when I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat, and secondly, I have no intention of returning to that point of order.
	Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [5 December].

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill

Lords amendments in lieu of amendments to which the Commons have disagreed; Lords reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments; and Lords amendments to Commons amendments.
	On resuming—

Clause 17
	 — 
	Extension of existing disclosure powers

Lords amendment 5B, in lieu of Lords amendment 5: in page 7, line 23, at end insert—
	"() No disclosure of information shall be made by virtue of this section unless the public authority by which the disclosure is made is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it."

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A paper setting out the details of the Lords message is now available in the Vote Office. A second paper setting out the Government's proposals for a response to the Lords is also available.
	The first Government motion relates to Lords amendment No. 5. I understand that it is the wish of the Government that all their other motions should be debated at the same time, and they are so grouped. At the end of the debate, I shall put the Question on each Government motion in succession.

David Blunkett: First, I apologise for the fact that it has taken us so very long to receive the Lords message and that we have delayed Members of the House so late tonight. I want to explain the areas on which the Lords have deliberated in detail: part 5 on incitement to religious hatred, part 10 relating to police powers, part 11 on data retention and part 14, which, for want of better a phraseology, we might describe as sunset clauses.
	Before we deliberate on the Lords message, it is very important to note that agreement has been reached on about 98 per cent. of the Bill. Given the speed, complexity and vigour of the debate over recent weeks here and in the Lords, that is a tremendous achievement. All people of good will should take pride in having been able to secure it. In that spirit, I shall address the four remaining clauses that we are dealing with tonight.
	My political instinct is that people would never forgive us if we engaged in party political wrangles at this stage. I do not believe that anyone outside the House with any maturity expects us to behave in anything but a mature and responsible fashion in dealing with the remaining disagreements. That is why I want to try to secure agreement between the two Houses on the outstanding issues.
	One issue and one alone has overridden everything we have debated—that is, providing greater security and reassurance to the people we serve. We have sought to do so by providing proportionate and responsible powers and trying to reach agreement where there is disagreement over how far the legislation should go.

Alan Beith: In the spirit of what the Home Secretary says, we recognise that the disagreement has not been party political, because it brought people of all parties together when they felt that the legislation, in some respects, went beyond the requirements of dealing with terrorism and security. The agreements that have been reached have helped to redress that balance.

David Blunkett: I certainly agree that Members of all parties have genuinely sought a way forward, but I hope that tonight we will show that we can achieve that in even greater degree. That is the point that I seek to make. Having established that we have already reached agreement on 98 per cent. of the Bill, I want to reach an agreement that allows the House of Lords to agree to the Bill tonight and to ensure that people are aware not only that we have been able to achieve that goal, but that Parliament has been able to handle a difficult and complex issue in such a fashion. As I said last night, the credibility of the process—not just of Parliament—is important to all of us, certainly those of us who care deeply about politics.
	Let me work backwards. Part 14, relating to sunset clauses, has exercised Members in all parts of the House in regard to which elements of legislation should be returned to, not just in terms of deliberation—that applies to part 5, on an annual basis and or part 11, which already involves a sunset clause of two years—but in terms of broader issues. We agreed with the Home Affairs Committee on a sunset clause of five years on part 4, and we agreed that it would be appropriate to return that to primary legislation.
	It has been suggested, particularly by the Liberal Democrats, that every part of the Bill should have to be revisited and rerun through Parliament. That, of course, would be at the expense of other measures proposed by, among others, the Liberal Democrats. We believe that, after sensitive deliberation on the matters that are of most concern and after agreement had been reached, it would be right to seek a return only if it was considered that remaining parts not given sunset clauses had prompted concern. We therefore proposed a review by a Privy Council committee, which would report to the two Houses within two years, and recommended that the terms of its report should be debated by the House of Commons.
	There appears to have been doubt about whether the commitments given by the Government would result in full deliberation in relation to any concerns expressed by the committee. Our amendment, while declining to provide sunset clauses in regard to every part of the Bill and therefore to rerun those parts, does ensure that the review can highlight areas in which the committee believes there is cause for concern in terms of implementation, and therefore that we would guarantee a sunset clause of six months on any such items should the two Houses not have an opportunity to deliberate fully.
	We consider this a sensible amendment, which should reassure everyone that the Government will have to provide a debate and will have to reach conclusions on the issues highlighted by the review committee.

Simon Hughes: Of course a review—particularly one conducted by those with authority—is welcome. The constitutional issue that divides us is this: it should be for Parliament, rather than seven or more people appointed by the Secretary of State—however important they may be—to decide whether legislation such as this should continue. This is a fundamental change in the principle that Parliament, and only Parliament, can apply the necessary wisdom and make the appropriate decision on whether emergency legislation that has not been considered properly should remain on the statute book indefinitely.

David Blunkett: We will return those concerns to the House specifically, but we will also bring the report on the Bill to the House, thereby offering it an opportunity not simply to debate clauses relating to extension of the Terrorism Act 2000 and part 4—we have already made a commitment to consider that annually and to conclude it after five years, if it has not already been concluded by a vote in the House—but to debate the whole of the working of the Bill. That is a unique opportunity. It has never been offered before by Government, and I think it helps us in these circumstances.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: I will in a moment.
	I think that that helps us; given that people have been prepared to give and take, listen, respond and make sensible suggestions, we have now reached consensus on the vast majority of clauses. For unique reasons, we appear to have had consensus on bribery and corruption across the House. One measure was demonstrably put in at the last moment on the insistence of a Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition party. On that alone appears to rest the full consent of the Liberal Democrats. It is a very strange world we live in, but there we are. Given that it is such a strange world, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).

Jeremy Corbyn: The Home Secretary said that the Privy Council committee will have a chance to examine all the workings of the proposed legislation and then issue a report. Will he confirm that in its examination of all the workings of the Bill, the committee will have access to the information under which anyone is imprisoned as a supposed international terrorist, and will be able to examine what it believes to be the justice of those cases before it issues its report on the general workings of the Bill?

David Blunkett: The reason why it is a Privy Council-established committee is to give it access to the security and intelligence services. Of course it will not have access to the detailed cases of the individuals who have gone through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the evidence that has been heard in private. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] I am not even going to try that answer because we have spent hour after hour, including last night, deliberating on that matter. I do not intend to hold the House up unnecessarily.
	On part 11, we had a suggestion from those who have been extremely busy on the Liberal Democrat Benches that we should separate out, because it is about not access but retention, those parts of data that someone could second-guess as being relevant to terrorists as opposed to organised criminals and others. They have considered it necessary to press that.
	Should I resist the House of Lords on that matter, the Bill is in danger of falling. We have some quaint rules as between the two Houses. If something is resisted twice, the whole Bill falls—not the clause, but the whole Bill. It is a learning curve even for those of us who did politics as a degree. No doubt the Leader of the House will get around to looking at modernising the way in which we operate. [Interruption.] That was not a threat; it was a little quip. I am so keen to get the Bill through before Christmas that I would not dare threaten anyone, not even on my own Back Benches.
	The amendment, in relation to part 11 therefore suggests that we should try to separate out those parts of data. As I tried to explain on a number of occasions, including last night, it is not possible to do that, but paradoxically, because it is not possible to do it, it is not reasonable to suggest that we should not do it. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendments that have been tabled. In order to be able to implement what they want, we will have to retain the data, so that it can be accessed to test out whether the intelligence services are right in believing that it is relevant in tackling terrorists. That is how stupid the Liberal Democrats are.

Richard Allan: I hesitate to intervene on that introduction, but I congratulate the Home Secretary on accepting the amendment. It is important not in terms of the practical implications, which are as he spelled out, but in terms of the message it gives to one of the UK's important industrial sectors, from which he will require full co-operation if we are to implement anything in the Bill—or indeed in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

David Blunkett: We have been fortunate in that the industry has given its co-operation voluntarily for the past three and a half months. I remember in my statement on 15 October thanking the industry and congratulating it on doing so. We established the concept of a code of practice with a sunset clause in recognition of the fact that the best wanted to get on board the rest, as per the famous Winston Churchill phrase of 1909, to ensure that those who were prepared to co-operate were not undercut by those who were not. However, we have agreement, so let us move to part 10, on police powers.
	We have another little paradox on part 10. It transpired that the Liberal Democrats had managed to contrive a situation in which their amendments reduced the powers already available to the police and the jurisdiction of the British Transport and MOD police. I pointed that out last night, and the Liberal Democrats went back to the House of Lords and persuaded their Lordships that they should accept an amendment that provides as follows:
	"Any powers conferred by this Part, except in so far as they confer powers replacing police powers which existed immediately before the coming into force of this Part, shall only be enforceable in relation to any suspicion, or investigation, or acts, of terrorism or any matters of national security."
	In other words, having accepted that they had made a complete backside of it, the Liberal Democrats have decided to put the matter right. We are now back where we started. In the spirit of co-operation, I shall ask the House of Lords if it would be kind enough not to resist putting the original wording back in, so that we can move forward on the basis that we thought we were on in the first place.
	The issue is serious because, should the House of Lords resist that request and send the issue back to the Commons, and if we were unprepared to put up with that nonsense, the Bill would fall. We have a clear message for the House of Lords: to ask it to accept that we have gone as far as we can in relation to those powers and to agree with this House.
	I come to part 5. Coming from Sheffield, I am familiar with the old nursery rhyme about the grand old Duke of York. So I have marched myself up to the top of the hill and I am about to march myself down again. Before anyone can quip about giving way gracefully or otherwise, I shall ask the House to give way to the House of Lords, which has voted twice to remove the incitement to religious hatred from the Bill. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] There we have it.
	There will be consequences. Every decision that we take—be it this House, the House of Lords or people in their individual lives—has consequences. Some people's attitude is, "We really agree with this proposal and we think that in the long term it would be a good thing to do, but this is not the time or the Bill and we did not agree with every word so we will reject it." [Interruption.] Those people will need to reflect in a year's time on where the new Bill is, not least those Liberal Democrats who are heckling me. After all, they have suggested that we should re-examine every aspect of this Bill, to the point where no time or space would be available to table a separate small Bill on incitement to religious hatred.
	That is the consequence of the enthusiasm demonstrated by hon. Members—on the Opposition Benches and on my own side as well—at the fact that the provision has been removed from the Bill. We all understand that the House should concern itself with construction, constructive change, improvement and building on proposals. What I have never understood is the great joy and cheer at the destructiveness of removal. I want to explain what I mean—

Paul Goodman: You just messed it up.

David Blunkett: I do not think that I have messed it up. I think that the votes in the House of Lords have messed up this provision.
	Many hon. Members were not in the Chamber when there was sensible and rational disagreement on these clauses. Genuine concerns were expressed, which were heard and responded to. Discussions took place behind the scenes, and the Attorney-General did his best to ensure that we found a way forward.
	I have no disagreement with that. People genuinely felt that there could be improvements and safeguards. That is fine. What I was referring to was the tremendous cheer that getting rid of the provision altogether aroused. There was no quiet pleasure at having won—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: I shall give way to the former leader of the Scottish National party in a moment, but I merely want to make the point that the House should not shout and jeer at such moments. We had a rational debate on the matter, and the Government have conceded that we have lost on it. The House of Lords has voted against it twice, both times substantially. However, that is not a matter about which anyone should rejoice. It may be late, and people may be frustrated, but that is the single point that I want to make.
	I give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary will not have to wait a few years to see such legislation in operation. My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament intends to proceed with similar legislation. However, in the Scottish Parliament, it will not be proceeded with as emergency, rushed legislation. Is not that the lesson that the Home Secretary should take on board?

David Blunkett: I have learned a number of lessons over the past few weeks, which I hope that I will carry with me. However, one lesson that I have learned from interventions from Scottish National Party Members over the past week or two has been how different the two Parliaments are. I do not mean in terms of their processes, but in terms of the volume of legislation and the enormity of pressure that exists in them. Obviously, the modernisation process proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will assist us, but in this Parliament we have the most enormous backlog and jam of legislation. Everyone, from every side, wants their preferred Bill to come forward.
	I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons).

Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that we in this House are sometimes in danger of operating as though we are not seen by the outside world? Does he share, as I do, the disappointment felt by the 27 per cent. of my constituents of Muslim origin, who feel that, tonight, the House has not listened to their concerns or protected them? Does he agree that we bring ourselves into disrepute when we do so in a crowing manner?

David Blunkett: When a number of faith groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain, asked me if I would consider bringing forward a clause on religious hatred, similar to the provisions regarding race hatred, we considered that it was a worthwhile proposition and attempted to do it in good faith. We did it to try and meet genuine concerns at a time when reassurance and increased security and surveillance were judged to be necessary. Our attempt to do this has undoubtedly sent a signal across the world. We did it in good faith.
	I have made a point that has aggravated Opposition and some Labour Members, but I think that it is important that, when we deliberate on these matters, we take joy in success.

Brian Mawhinney: I was one with whom the Home Secretary engaged constructively and graciously. Although we had a difference of opinion that was not resolved, we behaved as Members of this House ought to behave, so I am slightly disappointed at his tone. I ask him to think back to those discussions. The shadow Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesman both made an offer to the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that, were this measure to be dropped, they would co-operate with the Government on a new Bill that would address these serious issues in the round. Is the Home Secretary now telling us that that is not a prospect in the foreseeable future?

David Blunkett: As for the right hon. Gentleman's sadness about my tone, I merely observe that if someone blows a raspberry in my ear, I am inclined to blow my mouth organ slightly louder. A raspberry was blown by Members when I announced that the clause was to be dropped.
	On the substantive issue, I have heard that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members indicated that they would like to co-operate on a measure that they have just defeated. I am very keen that they should indicate that through the usual channels, as well as how they wish to co-operate over such a Bill, how they believe that it should be designed; what substantive measure, if any, they think that it should be attached to; and which measure would have to give way in order for us to find a slot for it. It was because of the need to get through these measures in time to ensure that we did not leave people at risk or completely disrupt the rest of the legislative programme that we sought to achieve what we are doing tonight.

Simon Hughes: I hope that the Home Secretary will return to his introductory tone and accept that there are honourable views held on this issue on both sides of this House and the other place, just as there are outside in all communities, of faith and without faith. It just so happens that the House of Lords has twice, by the largest majority since it has been reformed, not shared the view of the Government.
	I hope that the Home Secretary will not repeat the words of his colleague who suggested that the defeat on this issue—we think that it is the wrong place and the wrong time—should preclude collaboration on any Bill that deals with the blasphemy law, incitement and religious discrimination in the early future. The Government can make that time available if they want to.

David Blunkett: There is every reason to continue encouraging those who are prepared to co-operate to do so. I repeat that my remarks were based not on concern about people's disagreement but on the triumphalism surrounding that disagreement. I intend to conclude, because I want people to have the chance—[Interruption.] It is no good the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats immediately offering their co-operation, if that is what they are doing, and then criticising me for being taken aback at their tone. That is all.
	If we want co-operation, let us seek it. I shall conclude on that point—[Interruption.] I am not bitter at all; we have achieved a lot. We have achieved consensus on a range of measures—including the aggravated offence in relation to religion associated with race hate. That will be extremely important in its own right in achieving security and safety, as well as sending a message to people. I do not want people of any faith to believe that tonight Parliament turned down their protection. That is important—whether or not we disagree.
	Although it is late, I want to finish on a positive note. During recent days, we have received substantial co-operation from the Conservative home affairs team. I am grateful to them for that. A responsible attitude has been shown today by Conservative Front-Bench Members, and I am grateful to them. As I said yesterday evening at about 11.30, I hope that that will be emulated by the Liberal Democrats when these provisions return to the House of Lords—for it is not words that we seek, but genuine co-operation in establishing that Parliament can secure a safer and better future for the British people.

Oliver Letwin: This is an important moment for Parliament. The Home Secretary set out to achieve a Bill, with good intentions. Throughout, we have paid tribute to that. Throughout, we have recognised the necessity of the Bill and of having it quickly, because we face, as a nation, a real threat and, as I mentioned yesterday, all but seven of the 126 clauses properly address that threat.
	I also pay tribute to the fact that the Home Secretary has made significant shifts in order to enable us to have what we set out to have in the first place—a Bill about terrorism. There was never a place in such a Bill for a clause on incitement to religious hatred. I will not rehearse the arguments. We are grateful that the Home Secretary has given way to the overwhelming objections from the Lords. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view of the performance of the Liberal Democrats, who have worked with us conscientiously and openly to achieve that important result.
	I am also grateful that the Home Secretary has made way for a sunset clause that I believe will work. It is not perfect, but I suspect that we could never have hoped to achieve perfection in 10 days or so of parliamentary debate of a Bill of immense length. The provision will, I think, serve the purpose.
	I am further grateful that the Home Secretary has allowed the Lords to do their work of noticing that there was something wrong in having about 81 Government agencies and quangos disclose almost everything to almost any law enforcement officer, who was trying to investigate almost any crime, anywhere in the world. That was not proper drafting, although I do not think that the Home Secretary intended that provision from the beginning. The proportionality rule that he has now explicitly applied will probably serve to remedy the problem. Again, it is not perfect. As the years go by, we shall have to see whether it works, but it is certainly much better than where we started.
	Most of all, I am grateful to the Home Secretary for removing from the Bill an item that should never have been in any Bill: an attempt—if, indeed, it was intentional—to enable the Government of the day to push through, in a 90-minute debate in a Committee upstairs, any decision reached by EU Justice Ministers on any matter of criminal law. The Home Secretary has, in effect, removed that part of the Bill. He has so constrained the provision that it is innocuous, and for that not only we but the nation as a whole will be grateful, not just this year but for years to come.
	What has been proved during the rather arduous progress of the Bill is the value of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary check. The Home Secretary has ended up with a better Bill—not only from our point of view but from his point of view. What has been shown is that when Parliament asserts itself constructively, effectively and in a dignified way against the Executive, Parliament can win and can make the actions of the Executive better than they would otherwise be. That is a triumph for our democracy and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for co-operating in achieving it.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his colleagues for their collaboration. We have often been able to reach a common view in both Houses, and that view has prevailed in considerable parts of the Bill. I am sorry that the Home Secretary's frequent courtesy and friendliness when we have seen him and his ministerial colleagues to discuss the Bill and to put our point of view has not always been reflected in the tone that he has adopted publicly.
	I hold no grudge about the fact that the Home Secretary may have a different view. I understand his national political responsibility, and he is perfectly right to introduce in Parliament a Bill to deal with terrorism. The Liberal Democrats have unequivocally said that we accepted that there should be such a Bill and that we would support it, and we accepted that it should be emergency legislation. We have never veered from that view, but we have had some disagreements about the Bill's content.

Hilary Armstrong: Absolutely.

Simon Hughes: We have disagreed about the content because we have also kept to two other very straightforward positions. First, the provisions of a Bill that proceeds through an emergency process, without proper scrutiny and in double-quick time, should return for scrutiny at a later date—a perfectly normal constitutional principle. Secondly, we believe that a Bill that was intended to deal with terrorism and related activities should be limited to terrorism and related activities, and many of our amendments have been intended to deal with that issue specifically.
	Of course, there have been, and still are, disagreements. I am grateful to all my parliamentary colleagues for the fact that we have reached a common view about how to proceed and that they have unitedly supported the leader of my party, myself and our colleagues as we have sought to amend the Bill. However, the Home Secretary must not misrepresent the fact that when we have disagreed on extending the powers of data retention and transfer and those of the police beyond what is needed to deal with the current emergency, we have done so because we believe that it is not right to deal with those matters in this process and in this Bill and that, if the Government want to do that, they should do so elsewhere.
	I want to make a point about the deliberations of the past day or so. Although the Government have no majority in the country, they clearly have a majority in the House. [Interruption.] No, they have no majority in the country. Indeed, no party has a majority in the country, and the Government achieved a considerably lower vote than most Governments since the war, so we should have no arrogance from the Government. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be as well for the progress of business if any Member who has the Floor is heard in reasonable silence.

Simon Hughes: The Government also have no numerical majority in the House of Lords, but this Government of all Governments cannot complain if they are defeated in the House of Lords because that is the House that Tony, Jack, David and Derry built. This is their House of Lords and their creation. If they wanted a different one, they could have created it.
	Liberal Democrats regret the fact that the Government did not accept our argument about judicial review. We do not believe that it was necessary to derogate from the European convention on human rights and we were sad that there was a proposal to allow for European third-pillar issues to be debated on the basis of secondary legislation. However, we clearly acknowledge that the Government have made considerable concessions, and for each and every one of those we are grateful and are clear in our minds that they were wise moves that were taken on the basis of evidence and argument.
	Three issues remain. The first relates to the incitement to religious hatred provision. The proposition that I put to the Government yesterday and before remains absolutely clear. Liberal Democrats believe, like the Scottish Parliament believes, that there should be legislation on religious discrimination. We believe that, if the Government want to legislate, they can find the time to do so. We shall, indeed, collaborate with other parties and faith groups to seek to persuade the Government to find the time to legislate properly.
	Secondly, we believe that there should be a sunset clause for the Bill. What the Government have offered—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is still too much noise for such a serious occasion.

Simon Hughes: What the Government have offered is an improvement, but we have not changed our view that such a Bill should return for proper review.
	Finally, we believe that we were right to press the argument that the powers of the police and the authorities that were so widely drafted in the original Government proposals were much wider than was necessary to deal with the current emergency.
	We are consoled in our view by the fact that people from both the other major parties often supported us. We assure the Government that, like them, we are willing to co-operate and we assure the House and the country that we accept that this Bill, improved and amended, should pass into law tonight. However, we shall keep up our arguments when we believe that the law needs to be changed hereafter.
	Disagreement must not be misrepresented. It is the place for Parliament to express disagreements and Liberal Democrats are proud of the position that we have taken. We shall continue to argue our case.

Frank Dobson: I have no religious beliefs, but it is shameful that people in our country are subject to abuse and assault because of their religious beliefs and are subject to discrimination in jobs, housing and education because of their religious beliefs. I have long believed that we should outlaw such discrimination. I strongly supported the Government's proposal to do that, even though it was included in a Bill that relates to terrorism.
	I am sorry that the House of Lords voted that proposal down, but the problems remain. Tomorrow morning and tomorrow evening, as they take children to and from school, Muslim women will be abused and assaulted because they cover their heads because of their religious beliefs.
	I have listened to the arguments against the inclusion of such a proposal in a clause in the Bill. I have noticed that many of the provision's opponents have said that they want such legislation, but not in this form or at this time. The problems that it was supposed to address remain. I hope that the Home Secretary and the rest of the Cabinet will recognise that and shortly introduce a Bill that includes proposals to outlaw incitement to religious hatred and religious discrimination, because we owe it to the people who are suffering those outrages at the moment.

Tony McWalter: I rather disagree with the general tone of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, but I congratulate the Home Secretary on agreeing with the Lords in amendment No. 23, on incitement to religious hatred.
	We are all fanatically and fiercely opposed to hatred in all its forms. Indeed, if there were no such thing as hatred, we might not need a House of Commons at all. It is the resistance to expressions of hatred and violence that gives us our very role as Members of Parliament. Hatred is a hydra-headed monster: one can chop off one of its heads and two might grow in its place.
	The issue facing us has been properly expressed in the House of Lords. The Lords said that part 5 has an unobvious but deep and devastating implication for freedom of speech. I do not believe that this House has had a proper chance to analyse that proposition, but if it is true, and we are the custodians of freedom of speech, it is right that we pay the appropriate amount of attention to that argument. We have not been able during our three sittings to give it that attention. The House of Lords, in its eight sittings, has had more opportunity so to do.
	If it is true that the Bill has implications for freedom of speech, of course it may be that we still need to embrace curtailments because of terrorism, but the argument in this place has consisted of some people saying that anybody who says that there is anything at all wrong with the Bill is forgetting about 11 September. The beautiful 35-year- old daughter of my friend Padraig McHugh lost her life on 11 September, so if I say that the Bill is manky in parts, let no one tell me that I am forgetting about 11 September—no way.
	Some people have said that those of us who are opposed to some parts of the Bill have set civil liberties too high and the threats too low. Every item in the Bill needs to be considered by reference to whether it lowers the probability of events such as those on 11 September. Unlike many of my colleagues who have opposed the Bill and said that they are also opposed to the military action taken by the Government, I have been strongly in support of the military action.
	It is right, however, that this Bill—drafted too hastily, thought of too quickly and imposed without sufficient debate, particularly in this place—be simplified, and I am pleased that the Lords have done a job that should have been done here. I hope that in future, the timetable for any legislation of this sort will allow proper scrutiny to be conducted in this Chamber, instead of expecting it to go up the road where the Lords have the luxury of detailed debate, which we have been denied. I hope that we get legislation through to curtail hatred and make sure that we do so in a way that maximises the opportunity for freedom of speech.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like other Members, I shall be brief. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear.] I am grateful to my hon. Friends. The Home Secretary made the point that he will appoint a review committee to look at the workings of the Bill and told the House that it will not have access to evidence on the basis of which he will have the power as Home Secretary to name someone as an international terrorist, imprison them, deny them access both to the evidence against them and legal representation, then review their case every six months. Will the House reflect for a moment that no other country in Europe has introduced such legislation?
	We are rushing through legislation that means that people will be imprisoned without any access to the evidence against them or to an open court. Because the security services are apparently not prepared to trust the civilian courts, the Home Secretary is not prepared to change the Bill. The House should reflect for a moment on the fact that, unaccountably, we are giving incredibly serious and draconian powers to the Home Secretary and future Home Secretaries. We should not be doing that. To defend itself, a democracy must be open and democratic and give people the right both to knowledge of the evidence against them and to be defended.
	The Bill has been rushed through; it is extremely dangerous because it is a denial of civil liberties. If we parade ourselves as a democratic society, in times of difficulty it is important to show the rest of the world that we are prepared to stand up for the civil liberties and rights which we enjoy. If the Bill is used against supposed international terrorists and foreign passport holders, there is always the danger that it could be extended later to United Kingdom citizens. My hon. Friends and I are not prepared to support it because it is a dangerous departure from the norm of a Labour party and a labour movement that defends the right to civil liberties in our society.

Glenda Jackson: I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and place on the record the fact that many of my constituents believe that there should be a criminal offence based on incitement to racial hatred [Hon. Members: "Religious hatred"] Thank you. I should also like to place on the record my perception that that part of the Bill is not meant essentially or exclusively to protect people of the Muslim faith. There are many faiths that at present and, doubtless, in future, can be used as a target for hatred, as they have been in the past.
	I wish to assure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he has no need to apologise for his response to what he rightly called the triumphalist response to his announcement. I can assure him that the majority of Members who bayed their triumphalism were not in the Chamber last night when the issue was debated. The whole reason for the House's existence is to examine forensically the Executive's legislation, so why do certain Members always hide behind the excuse that they would be able to do so if only they had more time? This piece of legislation was introduced because of an emergency. If the emergency services that work on our streets and in our hospitals throughout the year argued that they could not fulfil the requirements of their job because they had not had sufficient notice, what would the House and the people of this country say?
	I take issue particularly with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) who averred that he discounted the other place. He said that it was a Chamber that had been created by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. When the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues signally fail to win an argument in this House, they invariably refuse to push their amendments to a vote because, as they say, the matter will be raised in the other place. A Chamber which the hon. Gentleman claimed this evening to discount is always his fail-safe.
	The essential point, which the House should examine without delay, is that an unaccountable and unelected Chamber can overturn the decisions of this Chamber. Members of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—I do not know what one calls the Liberal Democrats; one can hardly depute them to be the unofficial Opposition—argue that the Government are eroding the powers of this Chamber for various reasons, yet they are perfectly prepared to allow the noble Lords in the other place to overturn this Chamber's decisions. The sooner we ensure that the other place—

Hon. Members: Elect them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Glenda Jackson: Too impatient, and as always, illogical and illiterate. I intended to end by saying that the sooner the other place is elected and becomes accountable, the better.

David Blunkett: I thank right hon. and hon. Members of all persuasions who have contributed to making it possible to get the Bill through. I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions. I shall be spending more time north of King's Cross, given the support that I received this evening from my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).
	I thank my fellow Ministers, who have worked incredibly hard, and our Whip, who has worked particularly hard on the Bill. I thank officials and the lawyers, not just my own, who have worked extremely hard, but many others who have worked outside, briefing hon. Members and political parties and making sure that the Bill is a better one than when it entered the House.
	I have got over my momentary pique—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] That's better. I feel a lot better for that. I genuinely think that the British people will say, "Well done. Parliament has shown itself in a good light and we are proud of what you have done."
	Lords amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 23 agreed to.
	Lords amendments No. 380 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 40, 44 and 48 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Order [5 December], That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in amendment No. 66:—
	The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 64.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the remaining Questions necessary to dispose of those proceedings, pursuant to Order [12 December].
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 66 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to amendment No. 38C: Paul Goggins, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Beverley Hughes, Simon Hughes and Mrs. Anne McGuire; Beverley Hughes to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.— [Mr. McNulty.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to a Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
	On resuming:—

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

WOMEN (AFGHANISTAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]

Joan Ruddock: Even at this late hour, I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of women's involvement in a post-Taliban Government in Afghanistan. I want to talk about politics and reconstruction, but I recognise that for most women and children the first and absolute priority is food aid.
	I also acknowledge that I have no claim to be an expert on Afghanistan, but as a Member of Parliament I have a responsibility for what is done in my name, both by the Government and by the United Nations. As a woman MP, I also share the universal experience of women in a man's world.
	Prior to 11 September, Afghanistan was the poorest country in Asia. It was the second most heavily mined country in the world, and almost a quarter of the population were dependent on food aid. We are all aware and appreciative of the determined commitment to humanitarian aid of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), and of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for International Development.
	I heard what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday about the increase in the overall tonnage of food getting into Afghanistan, but I understand that of the $662 million dollars identified as necessary for the UN inter-agency humanitarian plan, almost a half is outstanding. I should be grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on that shortfall.
	Since 11 September, the plight of Afghan women has received almost universal coverage, but the cruel repression of the Taliban was well documented for years by the UN and was a focus of activity by women's organisations around the world—including our own Women's National Commission. While nothing could match the Taliban's brutal determination to render women invisible, restrictions on women's full participation in society predated that regime.
	Furthermore, under the Taliban, the pattern of control varied across the country, where the enforcement of edicts circumscribing women's rights was dependent on local authorities that varied in attitude. Some were willing to co-operate with aid agencies. Indeed, if that had not been the case, it is difficult to see how many women would have survived.
	Despite all the best efforts of the aid communities during the past decade, the plight of Afghan women remains dire. Estimates indicate that one Afghan woman dies in childbirth every 15 minutes; one in four children die before reaching five years of age; and female literacy is less than 5 per cent.
	Against that background, the idea that women might participate in a future Government seemed unlikely to most people three months ago. When I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 October, there was a tremor of unease on the Government Benches and—I am sorry to say—hearty guffaws from the Opposition Benches. The next day, broadsheet sketch writers took me to task and joked about all-women shortlists in Kabul. There was an immediate assumption that I was a tiresome feminist trying to impose western values on an Islamic society. Few people realised that I was simply reflecting the views of Afghan women campaigners themselves.
	Those women stood in sharp contrast to the images of burka-clad victims flitting nightly across our television screens; they were the women refugees in dozens of countries across the world, and the courageous women, organising secret schools, health clinics and beauty parlours under the noses of the Taliban. Those women came primarily from the educated elite in Afghanistan—older women who had lived through different times and their daughters and granddaughters.
	The first primary schools for girls were opened in the 1920s, and women's associations were then encouraged. The 1964 constitution gave equal rights to men and women. In 1965, four women were elected to the Afghan Parliament, and seven again in 1988. According to the UN in 1977, 15 per cent. of legislators were women, and until the early 1990s, 70 per cent. of teachers, 50 per cent. of Government workers and 40 per cent. of medical doctors were women.
	Following the Soviet occupation and the resulting civil wars, everything changed for women. In 1994, women were ordered to wear the hejab and chador and gender segregation began. In 1995, the Rabbani Government demanded that women be removed from the employment of UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. Violence against women became so extreme that initially the arrival of the Taliban in 1996 was welcomed. The relief was short-lived. The Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Suppression of Vice soon began its brutal denial of the most fundamental rights of women and girls.
	The reaction to my first question on this issue in this House prompted me to set up a new organisation involving Afghan women resident in this country. The aims of the UK Women's Link with Afghan Women are to raise the profile of Afghan women and to campaign for women's involvement in the future Government of Afghanistan and the restoration of women's human rights. One of our first actions was to send a letter to the UN special representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, calling for women to be included in the Bonn talks. Some 153 women, including probably all my colleagues here tonight, from nine parties in the House of Commons and House of Lords, the European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly signed that letter.
	Women's organisations, including Afghan women in many other countries, made similar pleas to the United States Congress and to the UN itself. Despite a notable lack of media coverage, the strategy worked. Three women delegates attended the Bonn talks, and there are two women in the interim Administration, but even before the talks started a new initiative was under way.
	The European Women's Lobby organised an Afghan women's summit for democracy in Brussels on 4 and 5 December. It was an extraordinary occasion. Afghan women of different ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds, from inside Afghanistan and from exile, came together to discuss the future of their country. I was there as part of the non-Afghan support team, and we were joined by the three women delegates from the Bonn talks.
	After two days of closed sessions, the Afghan women produced their blueprint. Their key demands are: the right for women to vote and to be entitled to equal pay and equal access to health care, education and employment; an emergency plan for reopening schools by March 2002 for girls and boys, including a new curriculum and teacher training; the inclusion of Afghan women lawyers in the development of a new constitution, which would include the principles of non-discrimination; the rebuilding of hospitals and provision of vital medicines, treatments and services, including psychological counselling and mother and child health care; the central inclusion of women in the Loya Jirga; and the protection of women from forced under-age marriages and sexual harassment.
	I believe that the UK has an important role to play in helping to achieve the aspirations of those Afghan women. I accept that the demands were drawn up by a group of women who, despite their differences, shared a standard of education quite removed from that of the average Afghan women today, but so do the leading men in the interim Administration.
	I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends have welcomed the increasing involvement of women, but I want them to do more. The Bonn agreement is a great triumph for the United Nations and the people of Afghanistan and it is welcomed by most, though not all, Afghan women's organisations.
	The UK has played a major part in shaping the military action and the humanitarian relief. Will my hon. Friend pledge that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure the restoration of women's human rights in Afghanistan? Nowhere in the Bonn agreement is this explicitly stated, and I know that this is not because such a commitment was not sought. I can only conclude that there was some ambivalence among the delegates.
	Will my hon. Friend state categorically that the UK Government will support the full restoration of Afghan women's rights in line with the UN charter? Legal authority exists. Afghanistan is a party to the major UN conventions on rights affecting women and a signatory, although it has not yet ratified it, to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which is known as CEDAW. The interim authority will take Afghanistan's seat at the UN. Does my hon. Friend agree that observance of UN conventions on human rights and ratification of CEDAW are essential to the restoration of Afghan women's human rights?
	As my hon. Friend will know, the Bonn agreement provides for the interim authority to take power on 22 December. It is charged with setting up, within one month, the special independent commission for the convening of an emergency Loya Jirga, the traditional grand council. There is no mention of women's participation in the commission, but let me assure my hon. Friend that Afghan women lawyers stand ready to participate. Again, will he try to ensure that there are places for women on this most crucial body?
	The Bonn agreement specifies that the special independent commission should ensure that
	"due attention is paid to the representation in the Emergency Loya Jirga of a significant number of women".
	This is extremely welcome, but some have sought again to label it as the imposition of western values. Afghan history does not support that argument. Women are first recorded—all 12 of them—as participating in a Loya Jirga in the 1920s.
	The interim administration is also charged, together with the UN, with establishing an independent human rights commission and a judicial commission. The former's responsibilities will include human rights monitoring and investigation of violations of human rights; the latter with rebuilding the domestic judicial system. There is no stipulation that women should be involved in either body. Does my hon. Friend agree that women, who have been the prime victims of injustice, will have no confidence in these bodies unless women are members of them?
	No one can be confident of progress in Afghanistan. None the less, the Bonn agreement is far reaching and ambitious. The emergency Loya Jirga will establish a transitional authority. This will convene a constitutional Loya Jirga within 18 months. It will also establish a constitutional commission to prepare a new constitution. Does my hon. Friend agree that women should play their part in drafting the constitution and will he ensure that, if UK officials are involved in any way, they will remain sensitive to the need to enshrine the rights of women in the constitution?
	Let me turn now to reconstruction. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how he believes the meetings of the World Bank and the United Nations development programme in Islamabad and Berlin will impact on women in Afghanistan? Does he feel that lessons have been learned by the international community in relation to reconstruction in Sierra Leone and the Balkans that should be then applied in Afghanistan? UN gender audits and women who have worked in those areas report serious inequalities in reconstruction assistance.
	I am aware of the excellent work of the Department for International Development as a leading funder of the UN development fund for women—UNIFEM. I am also aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Afghan Aid and Afghan women themselves all believe that, wherever possible, local people rather than foreign nationals should be employed in reconstruction.
	At the Brussels Afghan women's summit, women's international NGOs called for all reconstruction funds to be conditional first on, the participation of women in decision making on the granting of those funds; secondly, on the inclusion of women's NGOs among recipients of the funds; and thirdly, on the use of funds for implementation of the priorities of Afghan women themselves. Will my hon. Friend support such a proposition?
	My hon. Friend will know that most of the top UN decision makers on the ground are men, and it is likely that macro projects for physical reconstruction will mainly provide work for men. Will he ensure that reconstruction funds provide immediate work for women, not least the estimated 700,000 widows, and that major funds are allocated for the education of girls and capacity building for women, to ensure that in the longer term women have equal access to jobs and to secondary, as well as primary, education?
	The Taliban prohibition on women working has created the impression that women never made a contribution to that economy, but in rural areas women were equally involved with men in agriculture. Even under the Taliban, NGOs such as Afghan Aid worked with rural women in seed planting and vegetable gardening. The World Food Programme also set up bakeries, largely run by widows, which provided food for half a million people. Other NGOs have been successful in employing Afghan women in a low-key way, but the majority of those women trained as teachers and health workers have had to remain at home.
	There is, however, considerable room for optimism. The day after the fall of the Taliban in Kabul, six women previously employed by the UN turned up for work. They were asked to find other women to conduct a house-to-house survey to establish needs. Some 2,500 women were recruited by the UN, and already the survey is under way. Hundreds of local women doctors and nurses have also been identified, so the participation of women in the early stages of recovery is probably secure. The challenge lies in the future arrangements. Once again, the UK Government, as a member of the UN Security Council and a major donor, have a vital role to play.
	The transitional authority will lead Afghanistan until such time as a Government can be elected, around the middle of 2004. If women are to stand for office, they will need not only support but work and financial assistance. In the rush for physical renewal—for food, education and health—the political process must not be ceded to men only. The many courageous women who have continued to work in teaching and health have already demonstrated their readiness to serve and to lead, but there are many others, traumatised by their experience, who will need further encouragement. Will my hon. Friend recognise that need, and ensure that the UK promotes funding for capacity building and leadership skills where it is sought by Afghan women?
	Already, the Afghan women with whom I am working report renewed struggles by the women's organisation in Afghanistan. At the start of the Bonn talks, two peaceful marches for women's rights were banned by the Northern Alliance in Kabul. Attempts to regain use of a building that used to be a women's centre in the city were also rejected by local commanders. I appreciate that it is early days, and that there is not yet an overall authority in Kabul, but these are important touchstones in the rebuilding of civic society.
	Afghan women welcome an international peacekeeping force. They remember only too well the terrible years of gender-based violence and, even now, fear the repeat of the rapes, beatings and abductions of the past. Will my hon. Friend accept that foreign troops deployed in Afghanistan must be particularly sensitive to the terrible trauma suffered by women and children? Will he convey to the Secretary of State for Defence the point that special training is needed for that assignment?
	In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for his attendance tonight. All of us who have taken an interest in the events following 11 September have been on a steep learning curve. I am particularly grateful for briefings from UNIFEM, Oxfam, the UN information centre in London and the British Afghan Aid group. I also pay tribute to the remarkable Afghan women with whom I am working—Wahida, Sahar, Alia, Sabah, Nazifa, Assiya, Zarghona and others, who are my inspiration. The United Kingdom Government are, I know, committed to the future reconstruction of Afghanistan. While the future must be determined by the Afghan people themselves, the vast need for resources dictates the long-term involvement of the international community, including the UK.
	As I said at the outset, women's organisations do not seek to impose. Our mission is to ensure that where the UN holds the ring, space is made for Afghan women. Only with the full participation of women are we likely to see the creation of a democratic, stable and peaceful Afghanistan, which, I know, we all desire.

Ben Bradshaw: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for her work in bringing the plight of Afghan women to public attention. I pay particular tribute to her work with the UK Women's Link with Afghan Women. I congratulate her on an excellent speech; I am sure that all Members in the House—and it is nice so see so many here at this late hour—concur.
	We all agree that one of the most appalling features of the Taliban regime has been its treatment of women, including restrictions on women's access to health care and education. The Taliban were a sinister, barbarous and fanatical regime who demonstrated mediaeval cruelty, especially towards women. Their collapse has given the people of Afghanistan hope for a brighter future. Under the Taliban, women's access to health care was severely restricted and they were denied access to education. As my hon. Friend pointed out, maternal mortality rates in Afghanistan are among the worst in the world. Life expectancy is just 44 years.
	When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, they closed 63 girls' schools and more than 100,000 girls were immediately thrown out of school. They ordered that women could not teach, so 150,000 boys were forced to leave school. The university was shut down and 10,000 students, 4,000 of whom were women, sent home. As well as denying women access to education, the Taliban enforced further repressive laws affecting women. By law, they could not go outside their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative. It was made almost impossible for them to work; even their dress was regulated by law. The penalties for breaking such laws were savage. Now that the Taliban do not govern their lives, those laws are thankfully at an end.
	Last week, the first step was taken on the long road towards rebuilding Afghanistan and giving women a voice in its future Government. Exceeding all expectations, the representatives of the non-Taliban Afghan factions, including women and members of Afghanistan's four major ethnic groups, agreed that an interim authority under the leadership of Hamid Karzai would take office on 22 December. The British Government have long said that we would like a broad-based, representative Government in Afghanistan. We expect any Afghan Government to recognise international human rights norms, including women's rights. We believe that adherence to international human rights norms, including the UN charter and the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which the previous Afghan Government signed but did not ratify, are the key to restoring the rights of women.
	One of the most encouraging aspects of the Bonn talks was the participation of women delegates. There will be women in the new Administration, as my hon. Friend pointed out—a clear indication that the new Government in Afghanistan will be very different from the old one. Dr. Shima Samar has been appointed one of the five vice-chairs of the interim Administration and Minister for Women's Affairs. Although women often served as Ministers in Governments before the Taliban came to power, Dr. Samar will be the first woman to occupy such a senior post in an Afghan Government.
	Dr. Samar is from the minority Hazara group and gained a medical degree from Kabul university, where she developed a passion for women's rights. She escaped from Afghanistan after the Russian invasion and currently runs an organisation based in the border town of Quetta in Pakistan, which provides health and education services for Afghan women and children. She also provides medical training for female students at several hospitals that she runs in Afghanistan.
	Dr. Samar opened 10 Afghan clinics and four hospitals for women and children, as well as schools in rural Afghanistan for more than 17,000 students. Literacy programmes established by her organisation were accompanied by the distribution of food aid and information on hygiene and family planning.
	The new Minister for Public Health, Dr. Suhaila Seddiqi, as well as being a doctor, is Afghanistan's only female military general. She has served as a surgeon in Kabul's military hospital for more than 20 years. Dr. Seddiqi, an independent Tajik, stayed in Afghanistan throughout the civil war and played a key role in keeping the hospital functioning throughout the 1990s. Dr. Seddiqi managed to keep working throughout the five years of Taliban rule. After initially ordering her to stay at home, they realised how crucial she was to the running of the hospital and reinstated her as head of surgery.
	As well as supporting the overall political process, and the implementation of the Bonn agreement, it is extremely important that the international community should consult the women of Afghanistan about their priorities. The UNIFEM Afghan women's summit, which my hon. Friend attended in Brussels last week, was also attended by Dr. Seddiqi and Dr. Samar, and marked a positive start.
	The summit was the largest global gathering of Afghan women leaders to focus on the role of women in the new post-Taliban Afghanistan. It addressed the crucial needs of all the people of Afghanistan, focusing on health care, education, refugees and human rights. The British Government hope that the international community will support the aims of the summit declaration—for our part, we certainly will—which calls for a greater role for women in the future decision-making process in Afghanistan.
	We have long said that, while the form of the Government and constitution is for the Afghan people to determine, the future Government must be broadly based and representative of all Afghans. We hope very much that women will be involved.
	Slowly, the people of Afghanistan are beginning to see real improvements in their lives brought about by the collapse of the Taliban regime. We welcome the reports that female students are beginning to re-enrol at Kabul university for the first time in five years. Access to television and to international media will allow women to become better informed about the situation in their country and in the wider world.
	Improvements will take time. Better access to health care and education will afford women an improved standard of living. As they return to work, their financial situation will improve. That is especially important for all the female heads of household who were destitute when deprived of their livelihoods by the Taliban. Life for Afghan women has always been difficult. Afghanistan has more than a million war widows. Non-governmental organisations and UN-run projects to get women back to work will have a huge impact on the lives of many Afghan women and children.
	The UK recognises the need for capacity building and leadership skills training and, where it is sought by Afghan women, the Government will endeavour to ensure that funds are available for that. The international community continually uses experience from past development projects to develop long-term strategies elsewhere. I am sure that the lessons learned from the Balkans and Sierra Leone will be applied in Afghanistan.
	I am also sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will understand the need for any British troops in Afghanistan to be particularly sensitive to the traumatic experiences faced by Afghan women and children.
	Pledges for the UN appeal for Afghanistan exceeded the $622 million identified as necessary for the UN inter-agency emergency humanitarian assistance plan. Currently, as my hon. Friend said, the UN has received 55 per cent. of the amount pledged. The British Government urge all those countries who pledged money but have not yet realised their commitments to do so as soon as possible. That is terribly important.
	The meetings of the World Bank in Islamabad, and of the United Nations Development Programme in Berlin, were key to the restoration and reconstruction of Afghanistan. That reconstruction is an essential part of the effort to restore the rights of all the Afghan people and to underpin a commitment to the new Afghanistan made by the delegates at Bonn.
	The international community and the UN have assisted the Afghan people to begin the process of rebuilding their nation. Their future is in their hands. We have an urgent responsibility to support the interim Administration, and we will continue to support them so as to build a brighter future for all the people of Afghanistan—a future which, I hope, the voice of women will have a major role in shaping.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.